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

[SmarterthanYou]

In other words, you don't think rights are absolute just privileges, unlike you claimed previously?

If, as you've claimed, someone has a fundamental, absolute right to eat and you deny them what you have because you claim property rights, your claims of eating being fundamental are invalid. Either that, or your simply don't have a clue and are acting like a 2 year old that thinks he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants.

hey idiot, you have a fundamental right to bear arms, but does that give you the right to take anyone elses firearm? the same principle applies, moron.

[SmarterthanYou]

The Supreme Court. In over two hundred years the SCOTUS could never define what the Founding Fathers meant with the prefatory clause, hadn't you ever noticed that none of those Courts ever confirmed what you think the Second Amendment means?

you have zero context. NUMEROUS federal and state court decisions confirmed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right. the SCOTUS has no power to define the prefatory clause. the founders defined it with the NUMEROUS pieces of historical documentation and quotes that have been provided to you over and over again.

Then along comes the Roberts Court in the Heller Case, I should say Scalia's Court since it was all him. The supposed great proponent of "orginalism" convinced the Court that since prior Courts couldn't explain the prefatory clause that they had the right to just skip over it, so much for attempting to determine what the Founding Fathers were thinking when they authored the Amendment

the scalia court didn't skip over it. they didn't need to touch it because it had already been defined as I stated above.

[SmarterthanYou]

This case is not about a constitutional right but a Texas law which allows carrying long guns in public. The court changed the meaning of the law without justification. The law already regulated the act.

not even close. the case wasn't even about a law carrying long guns in public, it was about redefining 'calculated to alarm' (which should mean brandishing or threatening gestures) to 'likely to alarm' which means if anyone is frightened because of their sensibilies, which totally revamps an already vague disorderly conduct statute

[SmarterthanYou]

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

hopefully. the problem is twofold...........the criminal court of appeals is the highest court that can hear this in the state sytem, so the appeal needs to go to the federal court system which is way more expensive

[SmarterthanYou]

No right is absolute, dumbfuck. Just another fallacy you pull out of your rectum.

then they are not rights, just privileges to be modified or removed at the will of the government. but you hate rights, so you probably prefer that.

rights ARE absolute, dicksucker

[SmarterthanYou]

SCOTUS decisions on the 2nd says so, moron. As well as other decisions on other rights. We’ve been down this road before.

Other than your idiotic opinion, where does the Constitution say they ARE absolute?

Dumbfuck

your idiocy is showing again. the constitution limits the government, it does not define our rights, or their limits. that is because our rights are absolute, which is why you see 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED'..........so federal gun regulations based on the commerce clause are unconstitutional and should be null and void, but you'd like to see your enemies killed by the government, wouldn't you, traitor?

[Grokmaster]

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

Why can't you people stop trying to FORCE YOUR CHOICES on EVERYONE ELSE?

[SmarterthanYou]

They do, it is their major role, can you cite us another entity anywhere that has the last word on Constitutional matters?

the last word on the constitution is the entity that wrote it.....................that would be we the people.

[SmarterthanYou]

The Court changed the law. They are to interpret the law, not make law.

Calculated and likely are two very different terms. Hopefully Texas Supreme Court overturns this horrible ruling.

the TX supreme court cannot hear this case. the criminal court of appeals is the highest state court for criminal cases. this will need to go to the federal system

[Lord Yurt]

the TX supreme court cannot hear this case. the criminal court of appeals is the highest state court for criminal cases. this will need to go to the federal system

Why can't they?

Even if the issue is a Federal one, they can still hear the case and make a ruling so long as the underlying issue involves a state claim.

[ThatOwlWoman]

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

Poor Earl. You really should finish fifth grade before trying to discuss things with the adults.

“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.”

[Flash]

hopefully. the problem is twofold...........the criminal court of appeals is the highest court that can hear this in the state sytem, so the appeal needs to go to the federal court system which is way more expensive

I don't think the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear state laws unless they involve a constitutional issue.

[Cinnabar]

false equivalency. and that's pretty ironic, you being an abortion supporter calling ME the babykiller LOL

Save The Fetus/Screw The Child

[Lord Yurt]

Poor Earl. You really should finish fifth grade before trying to discuss things with the adults.

“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.”

What part of:

The right of the people

Do you not understand?

[Lord Yurt]

I don't think the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear state laws unless they involve a constitutional issue.

True, but I'm pretty sure he is arguing a 2nd amendment issue.