51% Sign

[TexasRedneck]

I didnt say to tell the police "Make him leave because he is black"... I said you can make him leave and you dont have to give a reason.

Point is you cant violate my constitutional rights and I cant violate yours (well, maybe I can, but most folks cant)

Until he hauls you into court and puts you under oath.

 

[Texan2]

Until he hauls you into court and puts you under oath.

you dont have to give the court a reason either. But we are digressing.

 

[JSDinTexas]

So you think it should be valid and legal for murderers, pedophiles, rapists, crack heads, etc. to own firearms? After all, those people are citizens also.

I am a strict constitutionalist so the answer is yes, but I also have some rationality and understand that some people should not have a gun. And I understand the fact that the Constitution is referring to conduct of the govt. Still, I stand by what I said, but let me say it differently - anyone that says I can't carry can KMA - is that plain enough?

 

[RiverCity.45]

TexasRedneck,

You mentioned someone getting hauled into court by law enforcement for violating someone's Constitutional rights. In the ongoing spirit of splitting hairs, one would have to violate the Penal Code to be arrested. People aren't charged wth criminal offenses of violating the Consitution. Penal laws may be adopted to enforce the precepts of the Constitution, to be sure.

Civil lawsuits are different, of course, but one isn't arrested in those cases.

By the way, how many angels CAN fit on the head of a pin?

 

[TexasRedneck]

okay....lemme split that hair w/ya....what about those tried (and convicted) of violating the constitutional rights of others - such as various Klan members over the years, etc.?

 

[daddy45acp]

At the risk of being redundant, the sign in a place that is questionable about whether they do over 51% of their business in alcohol tells me that the owner is more than likely anti gun and has a bad attitude about it. He's telling a lie in an attempt to keep law abiding CHL people out of his establishment. I'd say "screw the bastard" and just go eat someplace else. He's not even worth reporting to TABC.

 

[txinvestigator]

okay....lemme split that hair w/ya....what about those tried (and convicted) of violating the constitutional rights of others - such as various Klan members over the years, etc.?

They were charged and convicted of specific CRIMINAL acts. They were not charged with a bill of rights violation.

 

[txinvestigator]

At the risk of being redundant, the sign in a place that is questionable about whether they do over 51% of their business in alcohol tells me that the owner is more than likely anti gun and has a bad attitude about it. He's telling a lie in an attempt to keep law abiding CHL people out of his establishment. I'd say "screw the bastard" and just go eat someplace else. He's not even worth reporting to TABC.

That is a large conclusion to jump to. I have found that the majority of mis-signage is ignorance, not some nefarious purpose.

 

[TexasRedneck]

They were charged and convicted of specific CRIMINAL acts. They were not charged with a bill of rights violation.

Huh? I could've sworn that several of them were charged with crimes based on denying them their constitutional rights/liberties....

 

[daddy45acp]

That is a large conclusion to jump to. I have found that the majority of mis-signage is ignorance, not some nefarious purpose.

OK. How about just not assume anything, take the guy at his word and go eat someplace else? But I might add that even an act based on ignorance has a motivation.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I'm going to disagree. I recently dealt w/a local eatery that had posted a "no guns" sign. Long story short, the owner had misunderstood the signage requirements, and as a result of a simple, respectful dialogue the sign is coming down to be replaced w/the proper one. Had I "assumed", the sign would've remained, I wouldn't have returned - and many of my friends would've abandoned it as well.

 

[txinvestigator]

Huh? I could've sworn that several of them were charged with crimes based on denying them their constitutional rights/liberties....

Yes, charged with CRIMES. Crimes specifically listed in the criminal laws.

 

[txinvestigator]

OK. How about just not assume anything, take the guy at his word and go eat someplace else? But I might add that even an act based on ignorance has a motivation.

Take the guy at what word? A mis-applied sign has "no word" to take from him. It is meaningless. Of course, I don't live my life looking for every opportunity to be offended, either.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Yes, charged with CRIMES. Crimes specifically listed in the criminal laws.

See - this is where it gets confusing (and somewhat convoluted) - because as I recall, some were previously found "not guilty" of murder, but under charged again under federal laws re. breaking their constitutional rights....

 

[txinvestigator]

See - this is where it gets confusing (and somewhat convoluted) - because as I recall, some were previously found "not guilty" of murder, but under charged again under federal laws re. breaking their constitutional rights....

There are federal laws that deal with violation of civil rights, but they are still codified into criminal law. One can only be prosecuted in criminal courts for violations of criminal laws. The accusation states the violation.

 

[TexasRedneck]

okay...but the charge stems from an alleged infringement on the constitutional rights of another. So, they make it a crime to do so - but to a layman, the charge still stems from the rights issue.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I'm going to disagree. I recently dealt w/a local eatery that had posted a "no guns" sign. Long story short, the owner had misunderstood the signage requirements, and as a result of a simple, respectful dialogue the sign is coming down to be replaced w/the proper one. Had I "assumed", the sign would've remained, I wouldn't have returned - and many of my friends would've abandoned it as well.

Had you never spoken to him about the sign, it would not have been illegal for you to carry in there......now that he will be puting up a "legal" sign, it will be.

 

[just jk]

okay....lemme split that hair w/ya....what about those tried (and convicted) of violating the constitutional rights of others - such as various Klan members over the years, etc.?

those are civil rights violations, not criminal statute violations

 

[txinvestigator]

those are civil rights violations, not criminal statute violations

The civil rights violations are still codified into criminal law.

 

[just jk]

The civil rights violations are still codified into criminal law.

true, but in the US Attorney's office, there are two different divisions of prosecutors - its a different statute and has different penalties