texas court makes new law out of thin air, negates a right of the people

[Into the Night]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9468049977919069895&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44

open carry of long guns has been legal in TX for decades and while many cities have not liked it, they've had to deal with it. On occasion we'd end up with some idiot cop or another writing a disorderly conduct ticket, which usually gets thrown out because the language of the statute is too vague and doesn't describe activity that's disorderly. It simply states 'a manner calculated to alarm'..............and the US Supreme Court set precedent decades ago that the mere exercise of a right cannot be converted in to a crime...........well the TX criminal court of appeals just took that right away with the above ruling by redefining 'calculated to alarm' in to 'likely to alarm'.

Since this obviously violates the Texas State Constitution Section 23, this ruling can be ignored. No court in Texas has the authority to change the Constitution of Texas.

 

[archives]

REALLY? It is very clear unless you are a pompous lying leftist dumbass. The founders understood that in order to protect the nation from potential tyranny, the citizens would remain armed and that right could not be abridged.

What grade did you make it to? Fifth?



LIE and LAME. Again, no one needs to skip over anything. The intent is clear. The founders were very smart. They understood what tyranny means.

Just as they understood that having a bunch of low IQ leftists voting for dishonest politicians who promised them free stuff for their votes was dangerous to the Republic.

Amazing how many times "truthie" can be wrong so quickly in one thread

Show us where any SCOTUS, even the Roberts Court, said "the founders understood that in order to protect the nation from potential tyranny, the citizens would remain armed and that right could not be abridged.' Even Scalia with his bogus orginalism bullshit never confirmed or even wasted his time on that interpretation of the Amendment

And the rest of your post is the usual personal crapola, just you attempting to hide the fact you got nothing to bring to the exchange, it's obvious before you even had to resort to employing it

(time for a corny copy and past picture now)

 

[Into the Night]

Why is it you people can't recognize the fact that Constitutional rights can be regulated, that no right, none, are absolute, ever one can be, and are, regulated, simple fact. Carrying long guns in public can be legally regulated

No, they can't. You just don't get inherent rights at all, do you?

 

[Into the Night]

There are no limitations to the Second Amendment. There have been limitations wrongly placed on the Second Amendment.

If the Founding Fathers had wanted limits on the Second Amendment, they would have placed them there.

AND the 2nd amendment is binding upon the States, including Texas.

 

[Into the Night]

Not at all, you are implying some Constitutional right is being taking away from you and that that is illegal, but in reality it is anything but illegal, as I said, any of those rights can, and are, regulated

No. You can't take away these rights and call it 'regulation'.

 

[Into the Night]

The second amendment doesn't guarantee rights to all arms.

Correct. That right is inherent. The 2nd amendment specifically directs the federal government and the States to not mess with that right.

It also doesn't give you the right to interrupt people's peaceful lives,

False dichotomy. People that carry guns in public are not interrupt anyone's peaceful life.

just so you can flaunt your arms.

People that open carry are not flaunting their arms. They are simply openly carrying their guns. They are not brandishing them. They are not shooting people with them.

Carrying a long gun doesn't fit the situation anyway.

Sure it does. Maybe the guy is carrying the thing to a nearby range or gun store.

I'd love to see someone try, and do certain tasks lugging something like that along.

...such as?

 

[Truth Detector]

Amazing how many times "truthie" can be wrong so quickly in one thread

Show us where any SCOTUS, even the Roberts Court, said "the founders understood that in order to protect the nation from potential tyranny, the citizens would remain armed and that right could not be abridged.' Even Scalia with his bogus orginalism bullshit never confirmed or even wasted his time on that interpretation of the Amendment

And the rest of your post is the usual personal crapola, just you attempting to hide the fact you got nothing to bring to the exchange, it's obvious before you even had to resort to employing it

(time for a corny copy and past picture now)

Amazing how stupid you can get. Why do we need someone on the Supreme Court to tell us the obvious you willful idiot?

Read and get a clue you pompous dumb fuck:

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

 

[Into the Night]

if the state, or even the court, were using an actual gun law to do this, you MIGHT have a point. However, that is not what is happening here. The court is using a vague definition in a disorderly conduct statute to make people afraid to exercise a right in order to avoid the citation that they redefined.

He doesn't have a valid point even then.

He is attempting to hijack this into a global rights issue. This thread is specifically about this Texas court ruling.

 

[Into the Night]

Not in what you posted, they issued a straightforward opinion, even discussed your notion of a "vague definition," and reacting to a known gang leader displaying a gun in public doesn't quite seem like trying to "make people afraid to exercise a right"

1) The definition was not vague.
2) Texas is bound to the requirements of the 2nd amendment, like any State.

 

[Into the Night]

Rights are not absolute, fact, every Constitutional right can, and is regulated, another fact, and freedom itself is not absolute, even though the term used on the right reflects a total misunderstanding of what the concept means

Still don't get the concept of inherent rights, do you dumbass?

 

[Into the Night]

Where do you come up with such bullshit?

Marxism. It is an attempt to justify taking guns away by force so an oligarchy can be implemented.

 

[Into the Night]

And another one checks in, it is called the prefatory clause, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and just cause you probably didn't pay attention in middle school, the reason for a prefatory clause announces the purpose of the following operative clause

To relate in terms you can even understand, when your parent told you would get paid if you completed a household chore it didn't mean you were automatically going to get paid

Not a prefatory clause. It simply discusses the inherent right of any free State to defend itself through the use of militias.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9468049977919069895&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44

open carry of long guns has been legal in TX for decades and while many cities have not liked it, they've had to deal with it. On occasion we'd end up with some idiot cop or another writing a disorderly conduct ticket, which usually gets thrown out because the language of the statute is too vague and doesn't describe activity that's disorderly. It simply states 'a manner calculated to alarm'..............and the US Supreme Court set precedent decades ago that the mere exercise of a right cannot be converted in to a crime...........well the TX criminal court of appeals just took that right away with the above ruling by redefining 'calculated to alarm' in to 'likely to alarm'.

The phrase "...likely to alarm..." is arbitrary and subjective, which means it will probably be overturned.

 

[Truth Detector]

For the dumbass arsecheese who thinks there is a prefatory clause in the second: Thus, in the minds of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to "bear" a gun meant to carry it about in one's hands or on one's person, as for instance a deer hunter would do. "Bearing arms" is not associated with militia duty only, for the language above addresses the "bearing of a gun" by any person when not "performing military duty."

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

 

[archives]

Amazing how stupid you can get. Why do we need someone on the Supreme Court to tell us the obvious you willful idiot?

Read and get a clue you pompous dumb fuck:

The Founding Fathers, having just broken away from Great Britain, understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical. If it had the authority to control citizen access to firearms, then it could disarm them, just as the British attempted to do. This would make any attempts to restore liberties futile.

The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent this.
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/09/22/2nd-amendment-original-meaning-and-purpose/

And he just continuous with the inanity

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, they are the last word regarding its meaning, and they have never confirmed what you think is "obvious," shocking

And then he goes out and uses as his proof a short opinion piece from a conservative author who cherrypicks a one line quote to establish his case of what he thinks the Amendment means

Give it up "truthie," you are just getting worse by the post

 

[archives]

For the dumbass arsecheese who thinks there is a prefatory clause in the second: Thus, in the minds of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to "bear" a gun meant to carry it about in one's hands or on one's person, as for instance a deer hunter would do. "Bearing arms" is not associated with militia duty only, for the language above addresses the "bearing of a gun" by any person when not "performing military duty."

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3830&context=lcp

Are you daft, it is an academic paper from one guy at Duke, and if you check you'd find he guy works for the NRA, and that is what you think proves your interpretation of the Second Amerndment is valid? I'll go with the SCOTUS

 

[USFREEDOM911]

He doesn't have a valid point even then.

He is attempting to hijack this into a global rights issue. This thread is specifically about this Texas court ruling.

Most of this, is nothing more then a back handed attempt to reach the NWO and force the US to be part of it.

We've fought tyranny before and true patriots will take up arms to do so again, while the weak willed collaborators will beg for the scraps from their master's tables.

 

[Truth Detector]

And he just continuous with the inanity

Irony when you are the pompous dumbass who thinks there is a question of interpretation where none is required.

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, they are the last word regarding its meaning, and they have never confirmed what you think is "obvious," shocking

WRONG again you dumb fuck; the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution; they determine whether legislation conflicts with the Constitution.

For a pompous asshole, you don't have the slightest clue of what you are bloviating about.

According to Article II Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court has the following power: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

Nope, can't find "interpret" in there. Once again arsecheese is speaking out of his asshole.

And then he goes out and uses as his proof a short opinion piece from a conservative author who cherrypicks a one line quote to establish his case of what he thinks the Amendment means

Wrong; it is a very well written paper, several in fact. If you read them, you would be slightly less stupid and more informed.

Give it up "truthie," you are just getting worse by the post

IRONY from an idiot who has had his head used to mop the floor by the facts. You really are too stupid for words arsecheese.

 

[Truth Detector]

Are you daft, it is an academic paper from one guy at Duke, and if you check you'd find he guy works for the NRA, and that is what you think proves your interpretation of the Second Amerndment is valid? I'll go with the SCOTUS

LINK to where SCOTUS interprets what the second means asshat.

 

[archives]

Not a prefatory clause. It simply discusses the inherent right of any free State to defend itself through the use of militias.

No it doesn't, that has never been the interpretation of any SCOTUS even the Roberts Court, it is the prefatory clause, actually legally refereed to as the prefatory clause, and it is setting the requirement necessary for the main clause to become active, and it has never been defined