Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Kuhn-dog, PA_Will, Lance817, jeypate, ToddsFly
63904 Registered Users
Top Posters
dogcatcher 88541
stxranchman 53159
bill oxner 47882
RKHarm24 44577
rifleman 44388
BOBO the Clown 43767
BMD 40950
Big Orn 37484
SnakeWrangler 37274
txshntr 35255
facebook
Forum Stats
63904 Members
45 Forums
419186 Topics
6075046 Posts

Max Online: 16728 @ 03/25/12 08:51 AM
Topic Options
#7247402 - 08/06/18 06:21 PM Gun control in Texas.....
BillS2008 Offline
Outdoorsman

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 79
Loc: Gonzales, Texas
It is not much of a reach to say that Texas is the #1 gun friendly state in the Union. If it is not, Texas is certainly near the top of the list. Nonetheless, recent tragic events at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and at Santa Fe High School have proven that even in Texas, the debate over the right to arms enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions can be animated, if not downright hostile.

After the Santa Fe High School tragedy, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions which ultimately produced a 42 page “School Firearm and Safety Action Plan”. Both Texas House and Texas Senate committees have begun interim studies and public hearings on elements of the Governor's draft plan.

The most controversial idea being considered is the Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) also known as a “Red Flag” law. Many gun rights advocates claim such a law would be unconstitutional. In fact, some of those opposed to a ERPO statute also claim ANY restriction or regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and are quick to defend that premise with the “What part of ‘shall not infringe’ don’t you understand?” cliche.

Claiming any government regulation or restriction on firearms is unconstitutional is bizarre. Not once has the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) come even close to such a conclusion.

But let’s not take SCOTUS word for it. Let’s go back to the 1789 final draft of the Bill of Rights as well as the correspondence on the subject by James Madison, the author of those first ten amendments to the Constitution. What was Madison thinking and what did the words “shall not infringe” mean in his mind?

The 2nd Amendment states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.

In the 4th Amendment we find “The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated " which raises the question as to which word is more restrictive: “infringed ” or “violated ”? Does the use of infringed mean you cannot restrict gun rights in any fashion? If violated had been used instead of infringed, would that mean something else?

For that matter, the 9th Amendment relates “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So we have infringe, violate, deny, and disparage used in the Bill of Rights. I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy. Nowhere does it say that government cannot make law regulating firearms. If that were Madison's intent, we know exactly what he would have said.

The 1st Amendment protecting freedom of religion, speech and assembly begins with “Congress shall make no law…” There you have it. The strongest limitation on Congress was not the use of shall not infringe or violate or deny or disparage - it was “Congress shall make no law…”

If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not.

So Congress and the legislature can regulate firearms and do so constitutionally. The problem is when regulation becomes prohibition or becomes so onerous as to effectively deny these enumerated rights to the people - that is an unconstitutional act by government.

So while “What part of 'shall not infringe' don’t you understand?” makes a great bumper sticker, it does not go very far in defending 2nd Amendment rights. Those who use it are hurting - not helping - the cause of liberty.

Semper Fi and God Bless Texas!

Jerry Patterson

Top
#7259507 - 08/17/18 01:19 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
Marc K Offline
Tracker

Registered: 11/02/10
Posts: 933
Loc: Eustace, TX
From the piece above:

"If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not."

"I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy."


Hard to accept that someone today, is able to clearly guess what Madison and others meant - beyond their actual words. Sure, anyone can claim that the Founders actually meant something different than their carefully chosen words.

The words "Shall not infringe" are actually pretty clear in terms of intent, regardless of spin being applied.

Marc
_________________________
A Democracy is when two wolves and a lamb vote on the dinner menu. That is why this country was not designed to be a Democracy.

Top
#7259579 - 08/17/18 02:00 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: Marc K]
BOONER Offline
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 10/26/09
Posts: 5397
Loc: Brownwood,Tx
Originally Posted By: Marc K
From the piece above:

"If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not."

"I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy."


Hard to accept that someone today, is able to clearly guess what Madison and others meant - beyond their actual words. Sure, anyone can claim that the Founders actually meant something different than their carefully chosen words.

The words "Shall not infringe" are actually pretty clear in terms of intent, regardless of spin being applied.

Marc




up
And how many would have died in that church without the law abiding citizen with a gun!

Top
#7259797 - 08/17/18 04:49 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
SapperTitan Online   content
Taking Requests

Registered: 11/17/10
Posts: 25888
Loc: Killeen/Ft Hood, TX
The guy running against Cruz is all about gun control and wants to completely ban so called assault rifles
_________________________
If you have Instagram go give me a follow at TexasKillingFields



Top
#7259830 - 08/17/18 05:15 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: SapperTitan]
Slow Drifter Offline


Registered: 04/09/09
Posts: 4620
Loc: Central Texas
Originally Posted By: SapperTitan
The guy running against Cruz is all about gun control and wants to completely ban so called assault rifles


Yes, and he's done a lot of fund raising in California, which I believe is where a lot if not most of his campaign funds have come from.
_________________________
"I have no idea what WW-III will be fought with, but WW-IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

A. Einstein


Top
#7259880 - 08/17/18 06:03 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
luv2brode Online   content
Extreme Tracker

Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 3910
Loc: austin area
see the problem is people trying to pick apart these rights that it clearly expresses these rights are no granted by the govt but come from god himself.
_________________________
i am cancelling my subscription, i am tired of your issues!

Top



© 2004-2018 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide