Greg Abbott - TX Att. General

Discussion in 'News Articles' started by thorkyl, Nov 24, 2009.

  1. thorkyl

    thorkyl Active Member

    704
    0
    36
    Oct 13, 2008
    Brazoria County
  2. okie556

    okie556 Well-Known

    1,383
    0
    36
    Feb 12, 2009
    Longview, TX
  3. Acetone

    Acetone Active Member

    352
    0
    16
    Aug 24, 2009
    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.
     
  4. TxEMTP69

    TxEMTP69 TGT Addict TGT Supporter

    2,511
    0
    36
    Feb 17, 2009
    Rockport
    Love it
     
  5. txinvestigator

    txinvestigator TGT Addict

    13,091
    116
    63
    May 28, 2008
    Ft Worth, TX
    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?
     
  6. MadMo44Mag

    MadMo44Mag TGT Addict

    3,054
    0
    36
    Jan 23, 2009
    Ft.Worth
    +1
     
  7. Dawico

    Dawico TGT Addict

    27,004
    509
    113
    Oct 15, 2009
    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.
     
  8. atticus

    atticus Member

    139
    0
    16
    Aug 16, 2008
    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.
     
  9. Acetone

    Acetone Active Member

    352
    0
    16
    Aug 24, 2009
    El Paso
    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?

    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.
     
  10. txinvestigator

    txinvestigator TGT Addict

    13,091
    116
    63
    May 28, 2008
    Ft Worth, TX
    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?
     

Share This Page