texashuntingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
DB3, johnyp, Insight-Outdoors, whitten04, cactusjim
64527 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
dogcatcher 90,616
stxranchman 53,971
bill oxner 50,549
RKHarm24 44,577
rifleman 44,415
BMD 41,009
SnakeWrangler 40,503
Big Orn 37,484
txshntr 35,412
Facebook
Forum Statistics
Forums45
Topics420,094
Posts6,103,511
Members64,527
Most Online16,728
Mar 25th, 2012
Print Thread
Gun control in Texas..... #7247402
08/06/18 11:21 PM
08/06/18 11:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 80
Gonzales, Texas
B
BillS2008 Offline OP
Outdoorsman
BillS2008  Offline OP
Outdoorsman
B

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 80
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

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7259507
08/17/18 06:19 PM
08/17/18 06:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 961
Cedar Creek Lake Eustace, TX
M
Marc K Online content
Tracker
Marc K  Online Content
Tracker
M

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 961
Cedar Creek Lake 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.
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: Marc K] #7259579
08/17/18 07:00 PM
08/17/18 07:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,441
Brownwood,Tx
B
BOONER Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
BOONER  Offline
THF Trophy Hunter
B

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,441
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!

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7259797
08/17/18 09:49 PM
08/17/18 09:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,183
Killeen/Ft Hood, TX
S
SapperTitan Online content
Taking Requests
SapperTitan  Online Content
Taking Requests
S

Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 27,183
Killeen/Ft Hood, TX
The guy running against Cruz is all about gun control and wants to completely ban so called assault rifles


Originally Posted by bill oxner
I plowed mules.
Originally Posted by Roll-Tide
I did build a cabin. Aka the brokeback shack.

[Linked Image]
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: SapperTitan] #7259830
08/17/18 10:15 PM
08/17/18 10:15 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,680
Central Texas
S
Slow Drifter Offline
Extreme Tracker
Slow Drifter  Offline
Extreme Tracker
S

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,680
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

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7259880
08/17/18 11:03 PM
08/17/18 11:03 PM
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,025
austin area
L
luv2brode Offline
Extreme Tracker
luv2brode  Offline
Extreme Tracker
L

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,025
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!
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: luv2brode] #7291192
09/19/18 02:09 PM
09/19/18 02:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 407
The Woodlands, Texas
G
Gangly Offline
Bird Dog
Gangly  Offline
Bird Dog
G

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 407
The Woodlands, Texas
Originally Posted By: luv2brode
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.


That will be the next attack from the liberals: "There is no God, therefore your God given rights are null and void....gimme your guns!"


Aaron

Do it right, do it once.
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BOONER] #7291276
09/19/18 02:55 PM
09/19/18 02:55 PM
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,239
Grayson County
C
Choctaw Online content
THF Trophy Hunter
Choctaw  Online Content
THF Trophy Hunter
C

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,239
Grayson County
Originally Posted By: BOONER
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!


Have you seen the NRA commercial with the good guy? He is talking about the shooter and says, "he had an AR-15 but so did I." He is very matter-of-fact and makes one heck of a good impression.

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: Gangly] #7291292
09/19/18 03:14 PM
09/19/18 03:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 18,982
North Texas - God's Country
Cast Online happy
THF Celebrity
Cast  Online Happy
THF Celebrity

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 18,982
North Texas - God's Country
Originally Posted By: Gangly
Originally Posted By: luv2brode
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.


That will be the next attack from the liberals: "There is no God, therefore your God given rights are null and void....gimme your guns!"


And that is why liberals attack God at every level.


Cast



I have a short attention spa
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7291300
09/19/18 03:26 PM
09/19/18 03:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 532
D
Dave Scott Offline
Tracker
Dave Scott  Offline
Tracker
D

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 532
Well, the Second says "Shall not be infringed upon". That means hands off by Fed. Gov. The problem is.....what exactly should not be infringed upon? There are other areas in the Constitution saying you cannot be deny rights without due process, etc. and that's an infringement so it would seem to contradict the 2nd which is impossible since the Constitution was pretty carefully worded. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger claimed no individual right was created in the 2nd because it says "People" not person but then Burger errs (In my opinion) because he makes this huge leap from "People" to State or Federal Government. That's plain wrong.
So what exactly is a "collective" right held by the American "people". This is simply my opinion but here's how I see it.
1. The firearms are something more that "sporting" small arms. They are arms suitable for serving in the militia. Today that would be an AR-15 or semi-auto handgun. It would not go up to heavy weapons like mortars, machine guns, tanks since a militia man could not report for duty with any way to handle all the ammunition, etc. to use such. So...something more than a 22 rimfire or shotgun but not the heavy infantry weapons.
2. They would have to be privately owned firearms kept in the home. This is because of the "shall not be infringed upon". Article 1, Section 8 gives congress the power to arm, train, discipline the militia- that's infringement all over the place so the arms that "shall not be infringed upon have to be something else. NOT arms in a national guard armory.
3. "People" might not mean "person" BUT it also doesn't mean any sort of governmental body. People means the entirety of American citizens. Private citizens.
4. So....and this is my opinion. The government can look to an individual but they can't look to the American People. So let's say there is a criminal background check on Bob Smith- does that effect me or the American people owning firearms? NO. So okay. Now let's say Fred Jones gets convicted of a violent crime and can't own a firearm any more due to due process of law. Once again, does that effect me or the American People? NO.
But let's now consider some other gun control laws. "No more semi-auto rifles for ANYONE. You might have received a few purple hearts in combat, got the silver star but now the government says you aren't fit to own a firearm suitable for militia service. This law applies to the American PEOPLE. There is no due process of law and jury trial to restrict your rights. Any such law should absolutely be viewed as Unconstitutional as it disarms the "People".

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7291551
09/19/18 07:16 PM
09/19/18 07:16 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,483
J
jeffbird Online content
Veteran Tracker
jeffbird  Online Content
Veteran Tracker
J

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,483
Dave,

the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to actions of the state governments as well as the federal government.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Heller definitively decided the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: jeffbird] #7291658
09/19/18 09:06 PM
09/19/18 09:06 PM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 40,503
Over yonder.....
S
SnakeWrangler Online content
THF Celebrity
SnakeWrangler  Online Content
THF Celebrity
S

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 40,503
Over yonder.....
Originally Posted By: jeffbird
Dave,

the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to actions of the state governments as well as the federal government.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Heller definitively decided the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Word.....but that doesn't stop the left from trying any way and every way they can think of.....


Originally Posted By: skinnerback
Milf does the trick.

"You're statistically more likely to be killed by Hillary Clinton than an NRA member. - PolitiDiva

"You Cannot Simultaneously Be Politically Correct And Intellectually Honest!"
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: jeffbird] #7293416
09/21/18 05:54 PM
09/21/18 05:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 532
D
Dave Scott Offline
Tracker
Dave Scott  Offline
Tracker
D

Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 532
Thanks, I thought that was part of the original Constitution. In any event, my main point was when those opposed to private ownership of firearms drag up the "Communal Right" aspect, they immediately leap over to "communal" meaning some sort of government, local, state, etc. My point is such is a flawed argument. Since the second says the right can't be infringed upon- that's the strongest guarantee of "hands off" of any right. For example the first says "Congress shall pass no laws...." but doesn't say anything about state governments, etc. In any event, there is something out there that can't be infringed upon and that entity who has this guarantee is the people, not local or state government.
I therefore tend to think that a city (Washington DC or NYC, etc.) that categorically bans ANYONE (The People) from a handgun, etc.- that is unconstitutional. If the city wants to do a background check and bar felons, etc. from owning a firearm- well okay. But infringing across the board on "The People"- that has to be absolutely unconstitutional.

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: Dave Scott] #7294678
09/23/18 03:31 AM
09/23/18 03:31 AM
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Crosby, Tx
easttxhoghunter Offline
Woodsman
easttxhoghunter  Offline
Woodsman

Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 221
Crosby, Tx
VETO BETO, VOTE CRUZ!!!!!!


NRA Life Member
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: easttxhoghunter] #7294682
09/23/18 03:39 AM
09/23/18 03:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 40,503
Over yonder.....
S
SnakeWrangler Online content
THF Celebrity
SnakeWrangler  Online Content
THF Celebrity
S

Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 40,503
Over yonder.....
Originally Posted By: easttxhoghunter
VETO BETO, VOTE CRUZ!!!!!!
cheers


Originally Posted By: skinnerback
Milf does the trick.

"You're statistically more likely to be killed by Hillary Clinton than an NRA member. - PolitiDiva

"You Cannot Simultaneously Be Politically Correct And Intellectually Honest!"
Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7300757
09/29/18 03:06 PM
09/29/18 03:06 PM
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 151
Spring, Texas
tsasunkawitka Online content
Woodsman
tsasunkawitka  Online Content
Woodsman

Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 151
Spring, Texas
It's important to understand the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with "hunting". Each time we make that argument, I cringe. It gives the left a new direction and a new argument which necessarily clouds the truth. The 2nd amendment rights are given against those (the left) who would attack this nation and it's citizens. It is so we might defend against attacks both foreign and domestic. It is so we have weapons at the ready because in the revolution we did not have enough arms available to defend ourselves. The clear intent was to have sufficient numbers of arms, AND, arms of sufficient power to repel an enemy. That means comparable weapons to those an enemy may have, NOT muzzle loaders and shotguns! If our enemies have assault type weapons or particle ray guns...then so shall we!


39 years booking hunts worldwide with over 3000 outfitters. If you want to kill it or catch it...I've got it!

Detail Company Adventures
(713) 315-0480 Cell (best)
(713) 524-7235 Office
(800) 292-2213 Office
rick@detailcompany.com
SCI, HSC, DSC Member


Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7303013
10/02/18 05:46 AM
10/02/18 05:46 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 283
Harris County
T
tehachapi Offline
Bird Dog
tehachapi  Offline
Bird Dog
T

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 283
Harris County
A hunter that votes for a Democrat is like a pig voting for bacon.

Veto Beto

Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7316255
10/16/18 04:45 PM
10/16/18 04:45 PM
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 639
Tx
B
Buddy Offline
Tracker
Buddy  Offline
Tracker
B

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 639
Tx
Veto Beto should be a sticker...


Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008] #7338279
11/05/18 04:46 PM
11/05/18 04:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 623
JBSA Lackland
D
DeRico Online mad
Tracker
DeRico  Online Mad
Tracker
D

Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 623
JBSA Lackland
We(as a state) are getting closer to turning into California. California itself has gone down the poop drain forcing all the dummies to move this way.

Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread


© 2004-2019 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
UBB.threads™ 7.6.2