Patriot Mobile

Jerry Patterson and the 2nd 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!
  • avvidclif

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 30, 2017
    5,794
    96
    Van Zandt County
    The following is a quote from Jerry Patterson on the 2nd Amendment


    Dear Fellow Texans,

    It is not much of a reach to say that Texas is the #1 gun friendly state in the Union. If it is not, Texas is certainly near the top of the list. Nonetheless, recent tragic events at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and at Santa Fe High School have proven that even in Texas, the debate over the right to arms enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions can be animated, if not downright hostile.

    After the Santa Fe High School tragedy, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions which ultimately produced a 42 page “School Firearm and Safety Action Plan”. Both Texas House and Texas Senate committees have begun interim studies and public hearings on elements of the Governor's draft plan.

    The most controversial idea being considered is the Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) also known as a “Red Flag” law. Many gun rights advocates claim such a law would be unconstitutional. In fact, some of those opposed to a ERPO statute also claim ANY restriction or regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and are quick to defend that premise with the “What part of ‘shall not infringe’ don’t you understand?” cliche.

    Claiming any government regulation or restriction on firearms is unconstitutional is bizarre. Not once has the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) come even close to such a conclusion.

    But let’s not take SCOTUS word for it. Let’s go back to the 1789 final draft of the Bill of Rights as well as the correspondence on the subject by James Madison, the author of those first ten amendments to the Constitution. What was Madison thinking and what did the words “shall not infringe” mean in his mind?

    The 2nd Amendment states “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”.

    In the 4th Amendment we find “The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated " which raises the question as to which word is more restrictive: “infringed ” or “violated ”? Does the use of infringed mean you cannot restrict gun rights in any fashion? If violated had been used instead of infringed, would that mean something else?

    For that matter, the 9th Amendment relates “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    So we have infringe, violate, deny, and disparage used in the Bill of Rights. I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy. Nowhere does it say that government cannot make law regulating firearms. If that were Madison's intent, we know exactly what he would have said.

    The 1st Amendment protecting freedom of religion, speech and assembly begins with “Congress shall make no law…” There you have it. The strongest limitation on Congress was not the use of shall not infringe or violate or deny or disparage - it was “Congress shall make no law…”

    If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not.

    So Congress and the legislature can regulate firearms and do so constitutionally. The problem is when regulation becomes prohibition or becomes so onerous as to effectively deny these enumerated rights to the people - that is an unconstitutional act by government.

    So while “What part of 'shall not infringe' don’t you understand?” makes a great bumper sticker, it does not go very far in defending 2nd Amendment rights. Those who use it are hurting - not helping - the cause of liberty.

    Semper Fi and God Bless Texas!


    Jerrysig.png
    Capitol Armory ad
     

    Lunyfringe

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    1,402
    96
    Canton, TX
    Yeah, I've lived in 3 states that were more gun friendly than Texas... partially depends on how you measure it. First I was like WTF is a Jerry Patterson... then I saw Houston- figures.

    Requiring a license to open carry? nope, that moves it to about #25 instantly.. and the last part of the first paragraph- is he trying to say that the deranged assholes who committed murder in Sutherland Springs and Santa Fe were DEBATING the 2nd amendment? I take immediate offense from any politician that lumps law-abiding gun owners with mass murderers, those were just the kind that were the first to be recalled from office in Colorado history.. Senator John Morse (Senate president), and Senator Angela Giron were successfully recalled and Senator Evie Hudak resigned rather than face her recall election.

    Time to request of State politicians to reform recall law- in Texas, state officials can't be recalled (to my knowledge, only local officials can). Given the unprecedented corruption, there needs to be procedures in place to remove someone from office that ignores their duty to their constituents.
     

    Lunyfringe

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    1,402
    96
    Canton, TX
    Jerry Patterson is why you have the ability to carry in Texas at all, open or concealed. So don't be too harsh on him.

    Be concerned that if he is writing crap like this it means there is a lot of traction for ERPOs right now in the state house.
    with friends like that..... who needs __________
     

    Ole Cowboy

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 23, 2013
    4,061
    96
    17 Oaks Ranch
    The following is a quote from Jerry Patterson on the 2nd Amendment


    Dear Fellow Texans,

    It is not much of a reach to say that Texas is the #1 gun friendly state in the Union. If it is not, Texas is certainly near the top of the list. Nonetheless, recent tragic events at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and at Santa Fe High School have proven that even in Texas, the debate over the right to arms enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions can be animated, if not downright hostile.

    After the Santa Fe High School tragedy, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions which ultimately produced a 42 page “School Firearm and Safety Action Plan”. Both Texas House and Texas Senate committees have begun interim studies and public hearings on elements of the Governor's draft plan.

    The most controversial idea being considered is the Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) also known as a “Red Flag” law. Many gun rights advocates claim such a law would be unconstitutional. In fact, some of those opposed to a ERPO statute also claim ANY restriction or regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and are quick to defend that premise with the “What part of ‘shall not infringe’ don’t you understand?” cliche.

    Claiming any government regulation or restriction on firearms is unconstitutional is bizarre. Not once has the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) come even close to such a conclusion.

    But let’s not take SCOTUS word for it. Let’s go back to the 1789 final draft of the Bill of Rights as well as the correspondence on the subject by James Madison, the author of those first ten amendments to the Constitution. What was Madison thinking and what did the words “shall not infringe” mean in his mind?

    The 2nd Amendment states “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”.

    In the 4th Amendment we find “The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated " which raises the question as to which word is more restrictive: “infringed ” or “violated ”? Does the use of infringed mean you cannot restrict gun rights in any fashion? If violated had been used instead of infringed, would that mean something else?

    For that matter, the 9th Amendment relates “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    So we have infringe, violate, deny, and disparage used in the Bill of Rights. I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy. Nowhere does it say that government cannot make law regulating firearms. If that were Madison's intent, we know exactly what he would have said.

    The 1st Amendment protecting freedom of religion, speech and assembly begins with “Congress shall make no law…” There you have it. The strongest limitation on Congress was not the use of shall not infringe or violate or deny or disparage - it was “Congress shall make no law…”

    If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not.

    So Congress and the legislature can regulate firearms and do so constitutionally. The problem is when regulation becomes prohibition or becomes so onerous as to effectively deny these enumerated rights to the people - that is an unconstitutional act by government.

    So while “What part of 'shall not infringe' don’t you understand?” makes a great bumper sticker, it does not go very far in defending 2nd Amendment rights. Those who use it are hurting - not helping - the cause of liberty.

    Semper Fi and God Bless Texas!


    View attachment 145112

    I find this troubling and he is now off my list of those who I support.

    1) I get the gut feeling that is was/is looking for a way to squirm out of 100% support of the 2nd RKBA and he wants to base it up a single word (infringed) as his justification and basis for regulations.

    2) I also sense there is the questioning of what is the difference between Happy and Glad and I full concur with what Patterson concludes (RED). Any good writer do not like to repeat the same word to often. Since Patterson wrote that then he contradicts himself by drawing the conclusion that infringed is the weaker of word meanings. This in fact destroys his conclusion.

    3) I contend that infringed is in the stronger. The 4th Amend has a key word and that is "unreasonable", the means that in fact the govt can search and seize within boundaries. Again his argument fails the makes good sense test.

    I don't think this guy is good for us!
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,542
    96
    Dallas
    "The problem is when regulation becomes prohibition or becomes so onerous ..."
    Who gets to decide that? I already think the existing gun control is onerous.

    Nailed it.
    That’s the gray area where politicians monkey with our rights.

    And him saying “those words were just chosen so as not to sound repetitive” is pure bullshit.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,120
    Messages
    2,953,354
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom