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

[Into the Night]

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.

The Texas State Constitution does not prohibit carrying of any arm anywhere. It does give the legislature authority to regulate how they are carried, but that is all. It does NOT give the legislature authority to determine WHAT can be carried. The court is NOT given the authority of any of this at all. They cannot change the Texas Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

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)

The court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

 

[Lord Yurt]

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

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.

 

[Lord Yurt]

The court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

LOL, wut? Cite your authority for such stupidity.

 

[Into the Night]

And he just continuous with the inanity

Inversion fallacy. This is YOU. It is YOU that is making an argument by repetition fallacy.

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

No. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution. See Article III. The last word on the Constitution is the Constitution itself.

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

Lie.

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

Inversion fallacy. Now you are resorting to insult fallacies and lying.

 

[Into the Night]

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

The court does not have authority to change the constitution of the United States. They don't get to call anything the 2nd amendment a 'prefatory clause'.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh good,I'm going to buy a couple of machine guns,and Bazookas

Enjoy them! Be sure to buy LOTS of ammo for your machine guns. They go through it pretty fast.

 

[Into the Night]

Absurdity; a sure sign of the last desperate refuge for liars, fools and ignorance; and those who have lost their arguments. Yay you!

What's absurd? He has the right to own machine guns and a Bazooka.

 

[Into the Night]

Really, now I got to educate you on the Constitution and Court decisions?

Start with the Heller case and work backwards, and that means the actual case, the primary source, especially the opinions, not some NRA lawyer's interpretation

The court does not have authority over the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong again, didn't I mention how many times "truthie" could be wrong in one thread?

It is a prefatory clause, grammatically, and legally, that which makes the main clause active

No it isn't. You are trying to change the Constitution.
* States have the inherent right to defend themselves. They do that by forming militias.
* Individuals have the inherent right to defend themselves. They do that by using any weapon they wish.

 

[Into the Night]

The Founding Fathers didn’t write the 2nd, idiot. Madison did. And his version included a conscientious objector clause, meaning the bearing of arms was in a military (militia) context.

SCOTUS says you’re a fucking idiot on limitations of the 2nd.

Willfully ignorant moron.

Groan for me, bitch. Groan!

The Supreme Court does not have authority over the Constitution.
The federal government was never given the right to limit guns, even before the Bill of Rights. The 2nd amendment just clarifies that. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the militia.

 

[Into the Night]

Here we go again, same old crap, "truthie" keeps regurgitating the same half dozen or so cherry picked quotes from over two hundred years of history that he surely got off of some NRA website and tells us that is definitive proof "truthie's" understanding of the Second Amendment is the understanding of the Amendment

As I tried to tell you, you should have quit this thread long ago

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Apparently, NOTHING the founding leaders said means anything to you.
The 2nd amendment is clear. It discusses the right of a State to self defense by forming militias, and the right of the individual to self defense by bearing arms.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Fallacy fallacy. There is no fallacy in what he said.

The right to self defense is inherent (or to you, absolute). It is not given by the Constitution, but it limits the government from interfering with it.

 

[Into the Night]

They do,

They don't.

it is their major role,

It is not their role at all. See Article III.

can you cite us another entity anywhere that has the last word on Constitutional matters?

The States are the owners of the Constitution of the United States. They are the ONLY ones that can interpret it or change it, collectively.

Oh wait, I forgot, you think some opinion author off of a NRA website has that power

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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

The Supreme Court does not have authority over the Constitution.

 

[archives]

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Apparently, NOTHING the founding leaders said means anything to you.
The 2nd amendment is clear. It discusses the right of a State to self defense by forming militias, and the right of the individual to self defense by bearing arms.

Anyone can pretty much find something some Founding Father said to support just about anything one wants, not difficult, especially if you take it out of context and reframe it

And the Second Amendment is anything but clear, there's a reason it has been infront of the SCOTUS so often

 

[archives]

The Supreme Court does not have authority over the Constitution.

How does Mahoney have "power" over the Constitution?

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, it has the final word on what it says in their decisions

 

[Into the Night]

I have a feeling we will find out if this be true or no.

No, they cannot. We don't have to 'find out'. They already are.

 

[Into the Night]

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 ruling is unconstitutional on the grounds of Texas Constitution Article 1, Sec 23, Article 5, and the U.S. Constitution, 2nd amendment, clause 2. The Supreme Court of Texas has no choice but to overturn it, legally speaking.

 

[Into the Night]

Anyone can pretty much find something some Founding Father said to support just about anything one wants, not difficult, especially if you take it out of context and reframe it

And the Second Amendment is anything but clear, there's a reason it has been infront of the SCOTUS so often

The Supreme Court does not have authority over the Constitution, dumbass.