Patriot Mobile

Cruz Intros 9 word amendment

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!
  • cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    cycleguy2300; All,

    PARDON ME for pointing out that what you (imVho) correctly posted has ALWAYS been true since the CONSTITUTION was adopted.

    That is WHY we Patriots must ALWAYS assure a CLEAN/HONEST election AND stand ready to defend our LIBERTY from the "forces of evil", whether those forces are called SOCIALISTS, ANARCHISTS, FASCISTS and/or COMMUNISTS.

    yours, satx
    Yes, are correct. It's just been becoming clear theft is eyeing SCOTUS as a means to their end and it should be protected against.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    Hurley's Gold
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    You keep repeating variations of that statement without anything to back it up. Show me some case law or your "special secret legal meaning" dictionary.

    If you simply want to read about legal meanings, Black's Law Dictionary is a great place to start. https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/law-books/blacks-law-dictionary
    My copy isn't the latest one, but it does manage to contain terms important to the Second Amendment ;)

    Just in case you weren't aware: In a dictionary, the oldest definition comes first. Bryan Garner, the current editor of Black's Law Dictionary, is a stickler for this. So when "infringed" is defined as "break" as the first listed definition, that means that was the oldest known definition of the word. The latest entry is generally the most modern use of the word, and yes, this is critically important to know. Why:

    In American jurisprudence, the currently ascendant school of thought is called "originalism" -- I say that for a variety of reasons which we can get into, but mainly because once ACB is seated, there will be 5 Justices on the Supreme Court who are, or are kinda, originalists, although I should mention, sadly, that across all courts in America, originalism is very much the underdog. Anyways, "originalism" means that when reading a statute, you give the words the meaning they held at the time the statute was written -- their original meaning, hence, originalism.

    Who cares: Simple. When an originalist court reads "infringed", they read "break", because that's the meaning it had at the time the 2A was written. Later meanings, such as our current use of the word, do not reflect what the authors of the 2A wanted the 2A to mean, therefore later meanings are rejected. Sadly, Justices like Breyer and Kagan are not originalists, they don't GAF what the legislators, who were actually elected by the people, wanted, they read the law to mean whatever suits their BS progressive agenda.

    So you're unhappy about a ban on (e.g.) AP ammo, OK, the true burden on you is to show how it broke your RKBA, and of course it did no such thing, because the entire world of ammo is still available to you, except for that one type. You could never win that case, especially with originalists on the Court. Creeping incrementalism is the problem here, as mentioned earlier, but that's another thread.

    That doesn't mean that any law is totally OK as long as it doesn't break your RKBA! Laws still must have a rational basis (the water gets deep, quickly, so this is high-level for a reason, I'm not going to type 100k words here for a complete explanation), and a law that has an impact, of any kind, on an enumerated right, is subject to certain levels of scrutiny, based on that laws' impact and that laws' proximity to the "core" of the right.


    Williamr,

    NO NEW AMENDMENT NEEDED. - The other two branches of the federal government simply must PASS & the POTUS sign into law that PROIBITION of any SINGLE US Judge declaring ANY act of Congress, executive order of the POTUS or administrative regulation UNCONSTITUTIONAL outside of that single US Judicial District.

    yours, satx

    Amendment not needed, true, on the surface! But but but but!

    First, a law can be overturned just as easily as it was passed, so an amendment is much more durable.

    Who cares, you say, if the point is to get the democrats on record, so why not just a law? OK -- all bills have to go through committees. Proposed amendments have to go through the Judicial committee, and guess who sits on that committee? That's right, Senator Cruz, and his buddy, Senator Graham, runs that committee, and gets to decide what the committee will do that day and what they won't do.

    If you can't get your bill out of committee, you can't get the democrats on record...
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,430
    96
    Etmo will have good conversation, even if we disagree on a point

    On the other hand, I have never seen anything from you to suggest you are anything but a shit stirrer and contrarian.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    Some people just can't admit they are wrong, then they blame others for being contrarian.

    I gave you your answer a long time ago.

    You come out with something that was unrelated to the original thread, trying to impress people with your ability to read a math book, then continue to try an argue an invalid point. Enjoy.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Some people just can't admit they are wrong, then they blame others for being contrarian.

    I gave you your answer a long time ago.

    You come out with something that was unrelated to the original thread, trying to impress people with your ability to read a math book, then continue to try an argue an invalid point. Enjoy.
    Oldag you're still just stirring the pot without adding anything useful to the discussion.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    MacZC7

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 11, 2020
    1,412
    96
    Texas
    Oldag you're still just stirring the pot without adding anything useful to the discussion.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    None of your posts on this thread are useful to anything other than your ego. Do you speak to people in person like this or just on the internet? Gamma!
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,430
    96
    Oldag you're still just stirring the pot without adding anything useful to the discussion.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    As though an totally unrelated discussion of set theory, trying to impress people with a little knowledge of mathematics, was adding anything useful to the discussion?? Pot, kettle, black.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Bless his pea pickin' heart.
    I have yet to see you add anything useful to any conversation you inserted yourself into.
    a7b0b3b9599e60a9455f26df005c9fd2.jpg


    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     
    Top Bottom