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

SmarterthanYou said:
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?
Click to expand...

:lolup::rofl2:

There you go again, idiot, with your “infringed” bullshit.

Write SCOTUS with your legal opinion, dumbfuck. I’m sure they’ll give it all the consideration it deserves. lol
 
When I was young a lifetime ago, carrying a long arm or a handgun at your waist in parts of CA or AK or OR or UT, etc., did not cause excitement or alarm.

That is not the case now. The Constitution is a living document that must adapt and govern change in an ever morphing world.
 
jimmymccready said:
When I was young a lifetime ago, carrying a long arm or a handgun at your waist in parts of CA or AK or OR or UT, etc., did not cause excitement or alarm.

That is not the case now. The Constitution is a living document that must adapt and govern change in an ever morphing world.
Click to expand...

Causing excitement or alarm has nothing to do with the Constitution. It only deals with a Texas law. There is not an issue of whether Texas can regulate carrying of long guns, so how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted is irrelevant. Those who want more gun control are not thwarted by constitutional interpretation but by legislative bodies that choose not to impose tougher laws.
 
domer76 said:
:lolup::rofl2:

There you go again, idiot, with your “infringed” bullshit.

Write SCOTUS with your legal opinion, dumbfuck. I’m sure they’ll give it all the consideration it deserves. lol
Click to expand...

SCOTUS does not have authority over the Constitution. They can neither interpret nor change the Constitution.
 
Flash said:
It only involves the interpretation of a state law. I doubt a federal court would take the case on 2nd Amendment grounds.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. No court has the authority to change the constitution. No State has authority to ignore the Constitution and remain a State of the Union.
 
jimmymccready said:
When I was young a lifetime ago, carrying a long arm or a handgun at your waist in parts of CA or AK or OR or UT, etc., did not cause excitement or alarm.

That is not the case now. The Constitution is a living document that must adapt and govern change in an ever morphing world.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is not a 'living document'. That's just doublespeak for no constitution at all. It can only be modified by the process contained within the Constitution itself.
 
Flash said:
Causing excitement or alarm has nothing to do with the Constitution. It only deals with a Texas law.
Click to expand...
The law in question does not mention 'excitement' or 'alarm'.
Flash said:
There is not an issue of whether Texas can regulate carrying of long guns, so how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted is irrelevant. Those who want more gun control are not thwarted by constitutional interpretation but by legislative bodies that choose not to impose tougher laws.
Click to expand...
No, they are thwarted by an inherent right of Man and the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is binding upon the States.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Even Texas is waking up.
 
jimmymccready View Post
When I was young a lifetime ago, carrying a long arm or a handgun at your waist in parts of CA or AK or OR or UT, etc., did not cause excitement or alarm.

That is not the case now. The Constitution is a living document that must adapt and govern change in an ever morphing world.

Flash said:
Causing excitement or alarm has nothing to do with the Constitution. It only deals with a Texas law. There is not an issue of whether Texas can regulate carrying of long guns, so how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted is irrelevant. Those who want more gun control are not thwarted by constitutional interpretation but by legislative bodies that choose not to impose tougher laws.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion and you are sticking to it.
 
Jade Dragon said:
The second amendment doesn't guarantee rights to all arms. It also doesn't give you the right to interrupt people's peaceful lives, just so you can flaunt your arms. Carrying a long gun doesn't fit the situation anyway. I'd love to see someone try, and do certain tasks lugging something like that along.
Click to expand...

Fuck you didn't stay away very long!!
 
According to STY, eating is a FUNDAMENTAL right. Since eating is essential for life, if you deny someone something to eat, aren't you denying them the right to live?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two rights that come into conflict with another in the exercise of them can't both be absolute. That is impossible.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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'.
Click to expand...
If you're entering a chain restaurant with a long gun strapped to your body, you are doing so because you know it's 'likely to alarm' people who don't share your delusions.

Wanna go hunting? Go hunting.
 
Althea said:
If you're entering a chain restaurant with a long gun strapped to your body, you are doing so because you know it's 'likely to alarm' people who don't share your delusions.

Wanna go hunting? Go hunting.
Click to expand...

To make such a claim, you'd have to be able to read minds.

It doesn't take that much to trigger gun hating snowflakes like you. The fact that people own an inanimate object you gun haters don't like is enough to cause you to get your panties in a wad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top