Texas SOT

SCOTUS might do the work FineStien cannot

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!
  • Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    If The Supreme Court Takes This Gun Control Case, Its Decision Will Be Huge

    When the Supreme Court meets later today to discuss pending petitions for review, the justices’ conference calendar will include a pivotal Second Amendment case: Kolbe v. Hogan.

    In Kolbe v. Hogan, the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s ban of semiautomatic rifles and detachable ammunition magazines that exceed ten rounds. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit became the fourth federal appellate court to uphold the constitutionality of a ban on “assault” weapons and large-capacity magazines. The Second, Seventh, and District of Columbia circuits have previously upheld similar bans, and, to date, the Supreme Court has refused to enter the fray.

    But Kolbe v. Hogan will likely force the justices’ hand. Here’s why.

    Three Different Standards for Constitutionality
    While the four circuit courts that have considered the constitutionality of bans on “assault” weapons and large-capacity magazines have all upheld the gun-control legislation, in doing so they have adopted three different standards for judging the constitutionality of the laws under the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Heller decision...

    Read the rest: http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/09/supreme-court-takes-gun-control-case-decision-will-huge/
    Gun Zone Deals
     
    Last edited:

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    They keep arguing home defense as if that is what the second amendment says. What part of "necessary to the security of a free state" does it tell me what kind of firearm I can use for home defense?
     

    Time On Target

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2016
    28
    11
    When I was teaching Critical Thinking at the College level I used to put up "Separation of Church and State" which all of my students thought was in the Constitution, I would ask where and they couldn't tell me and then I would put the 1rst Amendment up and let them read it. The overwhelming response was that isn't what the Amendment says, which is why I told them to never trust anyone and always read what was actually in a document or argument.

    Under current philosophy the musket would have been banned because it was what the military carried and used. Thus it would have been an assault rifle with a multi-round magazine being carried on the person in the form of powder and shot in pouches.

    The Second Amendment was put in there because the Founders didn't trust big government and knew that an armed populace was the only reason that they had won. There are times when I wonder if SCOTUS has ever read the Constitution.
     

    Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    Lets look at this "critically":

    Who was the INTENDED reader and who was affected by the Constitution: Oddly enough that is set forth in the Constitution in the very first line: "We the PEOPLE", it does not say we the lawyers, judges or politico's..

    As a member in good standing of "We the PEOPLE" I read it for what it says and to that end the 2nd is very clear and especially CONCISE! It states "shall NOT be Infringed"...DUH, that kinda, sorta tells me everything, that no lawyer or 2 bit whore of a judge can OVERRULE what We the People read..

    It says NOTHING about defense of my home/or family, granted that is an IMPLIED objective as part of a free state, but it is not the prime subject.

    Is it time to stand up and to judges who TRY to legislate from the bench by just not following their ruling. They are NOT empowered to make law, there job is to interpret in accordance with the Constitution, not spin it as they see fit...
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,489
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    By all technicality we should be allowed to own nukes, cruise missiles, and tanks. Because militias were meant to fight in military operations against invaders or an oppressive state. The militias the 2nd amendment refers to were better armed than the British troops they were fighting (they typically had a better rifle than the standard British rifle.) The Pennsylvania rifle was particularly nasty and the British hated it.
     

    Wiliamr

    Well-Known
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    1,807
    96
    Austin
    We are just another generation away from "The People" believing that the 2nd Amendment only applies to self defense and that only the government should have "military style" firearms.
     

    Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    By all technicality we should be allowed to own nukes, cruise missiles, and tanks. Because militias were meant to fight in military operations against invaders or an oppressive state. The militias the 2nd amendment refers to were better armed than the British troops they were fighting (they typically had a better rifle than the standard British rifle.) The Pennsylvania rifle was particularly nasty and the British hated it.
    I will disagree on this. Here again I go back to the 2nd and what it says: "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."

    Militia: A military force raised from the civilian population, people, individuals.

    bear Arms: To hold arms, guns, rifles, pistols, INDIVIDUAL weapons not crew served.

    This is how I read it under my criteria of being a common man and not a lawyer or politician.
     

    Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    We are just another generation away from "The People" believing that the 2nd Amendment only applies to self defense and that only the government should have "military style" firearms.
    Must disagree and I am assuming that a generation away is 25 years, then no way IMO. I will make the call saying we are but 1 election for POTUS away. The Dems smell blood in 2020 and there is NOTHING they will not do to win...NOTHING! I don't believe for a single min that they will run Joe Biden, in fact I would shocked if they did. He is a WHITE heterosexual male and that fits nothing on their agenda. Black and or Latino, female is the direction the DNC is going and you can bet that extreme far left will be the mantra:

    IMO I see these as early contenders for POTUS and VPOTUS:

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

    Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.)

    First lady Michelle Obama

    Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

    Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg*

    Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD)

    Not a single one of these supports the 2nd A in any way, in fact most of them would erase it completely.

    *Zuckerberg, yes he is pasty white man, but he brings to the table his UBI (Universal Basic Income) for all. Its welfare by another name meaning its still lipstick on a pig, but he sells as enough money were you don't need to work therefore you can pursue your dreams of inventing a perpetual motion machine or what ever and make the world a better place. My guess is his idea if it gets traction among the people as in cross over to the center the the other pigs will co-op it or bring him in as a possible VP.

    Thinking the POTUS is going to be a radical female, my guess is 1st choice would go to MeShell Obama, but she seems more like she really does not want it then Pocohauntus Warren could be top ticket with Cory Booker in the #2 slot..

    No matter its not gonna take a generation to go all commie socialist full manchu...



     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,619
    96
    hill co.
    Except that more and more Americans are getting sick of the far left. Trump proves that.

    The only question is if the anti Trump backlash will be stronger than the anti left sentiments growing across the nation.
     

    easy rider

    Summer Slacker
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 10, 2015
    31,489
    96
    Odessa, Tx
    Must disagree and I am assuming that a generation away is 25 years, then no way IMO. I will make the call saying we are but 1 election for POTUS away. The Dems smell blood in 2020 and there is NOTHING they will not do to win...NOTHING! I don't believe for a single min that they will run Joe Biden, in fact I would shocked if they did. He is a WHITE heterosexual male and that fits nothing on their agenda. Black and or Latino, female is the direction the DNC is going and you can bet that extreme far left will be the mantra:

    IMO I see these as early contenders for POTUS and VPOTUS:

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

    Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.)

    First lady Michelle Obama

    Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

    Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg*

    Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD)

    Not a single one of these supports the 2nd A in any way, in fact most of them would erase it completely.

    *Zuckerberg, yes he is pasty white man, but he brings to the table his UBI (Universal Basic Income) for all. Its welfare by another name meaning its still lipstick on a pig, but he sells as enough money were you don't need to work therefore you can pursue your dreams of inventing a perpetual motion machine or what ever and make the world a better place. My guess is his idea if it gets traction among the people as in cross over to the center the the other pigs will co-op it or bring him in as a possible VP.

    Thinking the POTUS is going to be a radical female, my guess is 1st choice would go to MeShell Obama, but she seems more like she really does not want it then Pocohauntus Warren could be top ticket with Cory Booker in the #2 slot..

    No matter its not gonna take a generation to go all commie socialist full manchu...


    So then you believe the people that voted in Trump will not vote next election? I don't believe most people in this country are morons. The democrats haven't really helped their status in doing things to help Americans, they have mostly had an "against Trump" strategy. The people finally saw the picture Obama had painted and had enough and Trump got elected because Clinton would have been more of the same or worse. The democrats are going to have to actually do something in order for those that are on the fence to join them.
     

    Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    So then you believe the people that voted in Trump will not vote next election? I don't believe most people in this country are morons. The democrats haven't really helped their status in doing things to help Americans, they have mostly had an "against Trump" strategy. The people finally saw the picture Obama had painted and had enough and Trump got elected because Clinton would have been more of the same or worse. The democrats are going to have to actually do something in order for those that are on the fence to join them.

    No, not all. I think most will vote Trump again. But here is the problem. The Dems didn't think Hillary was gonna win, THEY KNEW she was gonna win and they knew it so strong she barely campaigned. HildaBeast POTUS was a DONE deal, just waiting on the fat lady herself to sing.

    They are NOT going to make the same mistake twice and they know they have a good shot as Hilda won the popular vote by over 3 MILLION votes.

    Soros is POURING $$$$ into Texas. Tex is the gold cup, flip Tex and its Dems in the WH as far as the eye can see and remember whites in Tx are the MINORITY!

    The Fake news and the DNC machine will say and do ANYTHING to win. No lie out of bounds and propaganda is HARD to defeat, because its based on lies.

    Its gonna be a challenge and a struggle for us to win in 2020...
     
    Last edited:

    TexasBrandon

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jul 14, 2011
    4,471
    66
    Salado
    Bearing arms means everything and anything, you don't get to determine crew served or not, it's still a firearm and legal to own. It's in English, it isn't meant to be twisted to mean something to someone that it doesn't actually state. That's the problem, people are trying to make it seem like it says something it doesn't. Like the word "Stop" at stop signs, people think it means coast through when it means "Stop".
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,619
    96
    hill co.
    The challenge is in reading it in the way language was used at the time of its writing.

    IIRC, it was affirmed that the 2A applied to cannons used on merchant ships. I would consider a cannon to be a hand held weapon and would probably fall in to the "crew served" category.

    For a long time our government owned few or no cannon. They were primarily private owned. You might say it was necessary for the security of a free state.
     

    Darkpriest667

    Actually Attends
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Jan 13, 2017
    4,489
    96
    Jarrell TX, United States
    Just so we're clear an artillery piece (Even mobile like the m110) is a crew served weapon as is an Abrams.... Arms are arms... they had no idea what the future would hold, but I bet they even meant that a puckle gun was ok to own for people to have and operate in the interest of militias. The media has already made militia a bad word so we knew that was the direction they were stepping.

    I'm just saying it's hard to take down tyranny when they have drones that can drop hellfires on you from 5k out and all you have is an AR15.
     

    dogbone

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 27, 2017
    288
    46
    Llano County
    The challenge is in reading it in the way language was used at the time of its writing.

    IIRC, it was affirmed that the 2A applied to cannons used on merchant ships. I would consider a cannon to be a hand held weapon and would probably fall in to the "crew served" category.

    For a long time our government owned few or no cannon. They were primarily private owned. You might say it was necessary for the security of a free state.

    Please research "letters of marque and reprisal" for a full understanding of just how important privately owned weapons, including armed warships, were to the founding of this nation. Colonial governors, and later Congress, would issue these letters authorizing a person to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale.

    Whether SCOTUS decides to take this case or not seems to be a waiting game at the moment. I would feel better if they postponed granting cert until Trump has the chance to appoint a couple more conservative Justices to the court. Heller was only a 5-4 win for us. Having the case go before the current court will be a real nail biter.

    If Kolbe v. Hogan does turn out to be the time to throw the dice, it is going to take some major bucks to properly prepare and present the case. One of the groups acting as plaintiff is Maryland Shall Issue. Any contributions you care to make to help this case go forward will be most appreciated by your fellow 2A supporters trapped in occupied territory.
     

    Wiliamr

    Well-Known
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 15, 2011
    1,807
    96
    Austin
    I respect your right to disagree. First, a generation would be on the order of 18 - 25 years. Second: the microcosm of Texas is a very small slice of America. I will ask you though, have you spent any time talking to kids of grade school through middle school age about the 2nd Amendment? I also ask, if you have spent any time talking to those kids in other states, such as California, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Washington or Oregon? Due to my recent travels and visits to family, I have had such opportunity.
    The educational system controlled by liberalists, globalists or just plain commie-pinko-socialists (whatever you want to call those teachers schooled in American colleges over the last 50 years) seriously do believe that the 2nd Amendment only applies to self protection and only very narrowly at that. Ask a kid in an east coast town what they would do in the event of a home invasion, school shooting, bank robbery, etc and you get a chorus of the same answers (hide in place, call the police, report anyone they see acting strange) ask them if they would fight? attack the aggressor and you get this strange look and almost equally answers of NO! I might get hurt, or NO! that is a job for the police. I asked one 15 year old waiting for a train in NY what he would do if attacked and he had no clue. He eventually said, he would scream and try to run away. That is how these people are being trained to react.



    Must disagree and I am assuming that a generation away is 25 years, then no way IMO. I will make the call saying we are but 1 election for POTUS away. The Dems smell blood in 2020 and there is NOTHING they will not do to win...NOTHING! I don't believe for a single min that they will run Joe Biden, in fact I would shocked if they did. He is a WHITE heterosexual male and that fits nothing on their agenda. Black and or Latino, female is the direction the DNC is going and you can bet that extreme far left will be the mantra:

    IMO I see these as early contenders for POTUS and VPOTUS:

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

    Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.)

    First lady Michelle Obama

    Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

    Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg*

    Gov. Martin O’Malley (MD)

    Not a single one of these supports the 2nd A in any way, in fact most of them would erase it completely.

    *Zuckerberg, yes he is pasty white man, but he brings to the table his UBI (Universal Basic Income) for all. Its welfare by another name meaning its still lipstick on a pig, but he sells as enough money were you don't need to work therefore you can pursue your dreams of inventing a perpetual motion machine or what ever and make the world a better place. My guess is his idea if it gets traction among the people as in cross over to the center the the other pigs will co-op it or bring him in as a possible VP.

    Thinking the POTUS is going to be a radical female, my guess is 1st choice would go to MeShell Obama, but she seems more like she really does not want it then Pocohauntus Warren could be top ticket with Cory Booker in the #2 slot..

    No matter its not gonna take a generation to go all commie socialist full manchu...


     

    diesel1959

    por vida
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 7, 2013
    3,837
    96
    Houston & BFE
    Please research "letters of marque and reprisal" for a full understanding of just how important privately owned weapons, including armed warships, were to the founding of this nation. Colonial governors, and later Congress, would issue these letters authorizing a person to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale.

    Whether SCOTUS decides to take this case or not seems to be a waiting game at the moment. I would feel better if they postponed granting cert until Trump has the chance to appoint a couple more conservative Justices to the court. Heller was only a 5-4 win for us. Having the case go before the current court will be a real nail biter.

    If Kolbe v. Hogan does turn out to be the time to throw the dice, it is going to take some major bucks to properly prepare and present the case. One of the groups acting as plaintiff is Maryland Shall Issue. Any contributions you care to make to help this case go forward will be most appreciated by your fellow 2A supporters trapped in occupied territory.
    Keep in mind that SCOTUS' docket is filled with cases through the use of the "rule of four" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four ). When cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, the nine justices look at the cases very preliminarily and then take a quick vote to decide whether the Court will accept the case and issue a writ of certiorari--a writ that demands the appellate court below to certify their record in the case and to forward it up in its entirety to the Supreme Court.

    The rule of four is not mandated; however, it is long-standing practice and prevents a majority from dominating what will become the docket for the year. There's no doubt that a majority can dominate the Court's eventual decisions; however, all it takes is four justices voting to hear a case and that case will be heard that year.

    A person cannot but be buoyed up by the presence of our newest Supreme Court Justice having been seated. He makes it far more likely than not that important 2A cases WILL be heard and then that the eventual decision might be one more in line with the original intent of framers.
     

    dogbone

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 27, 2017
    288
    46
    Llano County
    Keep in mind that SCOTUS' docket is filled with cases through the use of the "rule of four" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four ). When cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, the nine justices look at the cases very preliminarily and then take a quick vote to decide whether the Court will accept the case and issue a writ of certiorari--a writ that demands the appellate court below to certify their record in the case and to forward it up in its entirety to the Supreme Court.

    The rule of four is not mandated; however, it is long-standing practice and prevents a majority from dominating what will become the docket for the year. There's no doubt that a majority can dominate the Court's eventual decisions; however, all it takes is four justices voting to hear a case and that case will be heard that year.

    A person cannot but be buoyed up by the presence of our newest Supreme Court Justice having been seated. He makes it far more likely than not that important 2A cases WILL be heard and then that the eventual decision might be one more in line with the original intent of framers.

    You are perhaps correct in your prediction that Gorsuch's presence on the court increases the likelihood of a 2A case such as Kolbe being heard. Gorsuch and Alito are the only two Justices who do not participate in the Cert pool and actually review (or have their clerks review) each petition. This could well prevent a 2A case from being slighted in review by the random assignment to a non-2A supporting clerk in the pool.

    As a former Maryland subject who had to endure living under the draconian restrictions of this law, my sincerest hopes and prayers are with my brothers and sisters bringing this suit.
     
    Top Bottom