Texas SOT

Greg Abbott - TX Att. General

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Acetone

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2009
    352
    1
    El Paso
    I think this is "BS". The 2nd amendment to the Constitution is to prevent the FEDERAL government from passing laws to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. The STATES have the right to decide. I'm sorry, but this will just further degrade the sanctity of our Constitution. And before anybody jumps all over me about "Incorporation" that is an entirely different issue.
     

    txinvestigator

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    14,204
    96
    Ft Worth, TX
    I think this is bullshit. The 2nd amendment to the Constitution is to prevent the FEDERAL government from passing laws to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. The STATES have the right to decide. I'm sorry, but this will just further degrade the sanctity of our Constitution. And before anybody jumps all over me about "Incorporation" that is an entirely different issue.

    The Bill of Rights applies to the states also. Or do you think that a state LE agency does not have to follow Miranda, allow you counsel, or the state and local courts do not have to provide you with a speedy trial, etc?
     

    Dawico

    Uncoiled
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    38,007
    96
    Lampasas, Texas
    The right to arm and defend yourself and your family is a God given right, the Second Amendment only keeps the government from infringing on it. State, federal, it doesn't matter.
     

    atticus

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 16, 2008
    139
    1
    West Texas
    Acetone, I think your language is a little strong. Most legal analysts believe that the second amendment will indeed be incorporated in the Supreme Court's ruling in the pending case. It's not "BS," as you say. It's valid constitutional law. Otherwise, the city of El Paso (or any other American city)could, if it wanted to, ban all of your guns within the city limits. That would not be a good result for any Texan.
     

    Acetone

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2009
    352
    1
    El Paso
    The Bill of Rights applies to the states also. Or do you think that a state LE agency does not have to follow Miranda, allow you counsel, or the state and local courts do not have to provide you with a speedy trial, etc?

    Could you please show me in the Constitution where the Federal government was given the power to tell the states that they have to read Miranda?

    Acetone, I think your language is a little strong. Most legal analysts believe that the second amendment will indeed be incorporated in the Supreme Court's ruling in the pending case. It's not "BS," as you say. It's valid constitutional law. Otherwise, the city of El Paso (or any other American city)could, if it wanted to, ban all of your guns within the city limits. That would not be a good result for any Texan.

    Yes sir, a little strong. I do apologize. The States have always been sovereign, so the idea of the Federal government telling them to do something that was not enumerated is unconstitutional. Most Constitutional scholars ignore that fact.
     

    txinvestigator

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    14,204
    96
    Ft Worth, TX
    Could you please show me in the Constitution where the Federal government was given the power to tell the states that they have to read Miranda?
    Miranda ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the 5th amendment self-incrimination clause and 6th smendmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them. Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned.

    The ruling meant that non federal jurisdictions were bound to those amendments.

    So why are states bound to those amendments but not to the 2nd?
     

    Acetone

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2009
    352
    1
    El Paso
    Miranda ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the 5th amendment self-incrimination clause and 6th smendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had then waived them. Thus, Miranda's conviction was overturned.

    The ruling meant that non federal jurisdictions were bound to those amendments.

    So why are states bound to those amendments but not to the 2nd?

    You didn't answer my question.
     

    ldcarson

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 21, 2008
    64
    11
    Brasilia, Brazil
    I believe all states...as part of their admission into this great union, agree to accept the constitution and all of its amendments and future amendments. The right to keep and bear arms is a recognized right for all Americans irrespective of where they live. i would argue the state has no right to setup additional rules/polcies/regulations to include permits, restriction of the type of arms etc..on those rights. Qite frankly I don't even think the 1934 Firearms act is legal either, but someone with alot more time and money than I will have to fight it.

    The problem is, Americans have all been asleep at the wheel for the last 100 years, and our rights have slowly been chipped away and degraded. We have allowed our education system to be compromised to the point where these libtard ideas now permeate our society through our young people, who are getting older and bringing these warped ideas with them into government and political circles. Now we must work within the legal means to reclaim them, however slowly it may be...we have to start somewhere.
     
    Top Bottom