My Legislative Wish List

[Fisherman777]

This is a difficult assertion to make. Should violent felons released on bail be allowed to bare arms? Should individual citizens own nuclear weapons. If you accept these infringements on an individual's right to bare arms are you not judging worthiness? Are you not accessing reasonableness?

Somewhere, somehow, any government will have to force certain actions of it's citizens. The only way to have no "mandatory" actions under government is to have Anarchy.

That's why in the 5th and 14th amendments where they talk about life, liberty and property they also speak to due process. Good government should strive to be as free and unencumbered as possible, but still must be funded and provide order. I'm not sure the definition of "reasonable" has been defined through common law yet, after Heller.

Well, I don't think anyone is talking about going as far as anarchy. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn but I think we're saying that we need as little government as we can get away with and still be an orderly society. It's gotten out of hand. What we have to agree on is how to fix it.

This darned keyboard can't convey our thoughts as well as an in person conversation. Right?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Well, I don't think anyone is talking about going as far as anarchy. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn but I think we're saying that we need as little government as we can get away with and still be an orderly society. It's gotten out of hand. What we have to agree on is how to fix it.

This darned keyboard can't convey our thoughts as well as an in person conversation. Right?

I agree with you, LOL, I juts like making arguments on the interwebs!

 

[APatriot]

Should individual citizens own nuclear weapons. If you accept these infringements on an individual's right to bare arms are you not judging worthiness? Are you not accessing reasonableness?

Somewhere, somehow, any government will have to force certain actions of it's citizens. The only way to have no "mandatory" actions under government is to have Anarchy.

That's why in the 5th and 14th amendments where they talk about life, liberty and property they also speak to due process. Good government should strive to be as free and unencumbered as possible, but still must be funded and provide order. I'm not sure the definition of "reasonable" has been defined through common law yet, after Heller.

Well said.

 

[txinvestigator]

Start from the beginning of the thread and read it again.
Read every post untill you understand what is being discussed.
At that point I will be glad to debate anything with you.

You wrote that you called and spoke to the "Firearms Directors" for several states. You lied. There is no Firearms Director in Texas. If the other states have them, please name them. I'll call and talk to em too. Good Grief.

I also never write that people who disagree with me are idiots, as you did. I just don't talk out of my ass about fees and costs unless I have an educated opinion. I'll avoided labeling those who don't do that as "idiots."

 

[MR Redneck]

You wrote that you called and spoke to the "Firearms Directors" for several states. You lied. There is no Firearms Director in Texas. If the other states have them, please name them. I'll call and talk to em too. Good Grief.

I also never write that people who disagree with me are idiots, as you did. I just don't talk out of my ass about fees and costs unless I have an educated opinion. I'll avoided labeling those who don't do that as "idiots."

So now your claiming I lied?? Thats pretty educated for someone who cant do anything but post his opinion about the $140 CHL fee is costing the DPS. PROOVE THE STATE ISNT PROFITING FROM THE $140 FEE, " that is if you have actual proof instead of an uneducated opinion"!
And no im not posting name of anyone on here. If you want to talk to those people all you have to do is pick a state, google state firearms licensing, call them, ask if someone from the directors office can speak with you, then say thank you m'am..
You may also try being honest like I was and expalin your looking for states that can give you some information on better right to carry laws.
BTW, Google is very helpful when lookin for stuff. You shouldnt depend on someone else to do all the work for you.

 

[txinvestigator]

So now your claiming I lied?? Thats pretty educated for someone who cant do anything but post his opinion about the $140 CHL fee is costing the DPS. PROOVE THE STATE ISNT PROFITING FROM THE $140 FEE, " that is if you have actual proof instead of an uneducated opinion"!
And no im not posting name of anyone on here. If you want to talk to those people all you have to do is pick a state, google state firearms licensing, call them, ask if someone from the directors office can speak with you, then say thank you m'am..
You may also try being honest like I was and expalin your looking for states that can give you some information on better right to carry laws.
BTW, Google is very helpful when lookin for stuff. You shouldnt depend on someone else to do all the work for you.

Again, you wrote that you talked to the "firearms director" for several states,and listed Texas. I know you lied about that. I also suspect the other states don't have "firearms directors". You won't name a public official because you are making that up.

You can believe what you want about fees and profit. You can believe in Santa Clause as far a I care. I take issue with your calling anyone who does not agree with you an idiot.

 

[Texan2]

So you called the "State Firearms Directors" form all these states but dont want to tell us who they are....

hmmmmmm........

 

[Texan2]

OK TXI, according to the time stamp we were thinking the same thing at the same time.

 

[APatriot]

As I said, open carry is a method of bearing arms that some prefer. Restricting this method of carry is an infringement on our right to bear arms.

You're either 16 years old or you have serious mental illness.

You can prefer OC all day long but my point has been, and continues to be, that OC is not substantially supported or negated, for that matter, by the 2A. It is simply your opinion that not permitting OC is an infringement, and your opinion represents the "minority" in the gun movement in the Great State of Texas. Setting aside your preference, I am still waiting for a response to this question: When I CC, am I bearing arms? When I "keep" a firearm in my vehicle and at my home, am I fulfilling my 2A right to "keep" arms? These are simple questions from this 16 year old mental retard, and moreover, we could even discuss how restricting where I can CC as an infringement. But, something tells me you won't do either.

So instead, please continue to prefer OC all day long!

 

[MR Redneck]

So you called the "State Firearms Directors" form all these states but dont want to tell us who they are....

hmmmmmm........

IF you want to post people names all over the net then go ahead, I dont do that. Like I told the investigator, if you are truly interested in knowing about the success of other states licensing , all you got to do is google that state and firearms licensing. Washington even has a Lady Sheriff in one of the major counties who will be glad to tell ya all about it. Calling the counties and State departments gets better opinions from both level's of state government.
Heres something funny I learned from her. Texas accepts Washington's permit, that requires no training and only cost $55, but Washington wont accept the Texas CHL that cost $140 and requires a $150 class! We had a good laugh at my funny! " The high priced overly regulated right to carry in Texas, is too good for the less restrictive states" . BwaaHaHa.

 

[Texan2]

If you want to post people names all over the net then go ahead, I dont do that.

I think the point is, if they are state employees who are "firearms directors" then their positions are not top secret. I am sure they would be on some state's website. Why would you not want to tell us who they are?

Ok....since no one else has, I will call it.

BS alert!
BS alert!
BS alert!

 

[Bithabus]

You can prefer OC all day long but my point has been, and continues to be, that OC is not substantially supported or negated, for that matter, by the 2A. It is simply your opinion that not permitting OC is an infringement, and your opinion represents the "minority" in the gun movement in the Great State of Texas. Setting aside your preference, I am still waiting for a response to this question: When I CC, am I bearing arms? When I "keep" a firearm in my vehicle and at my home, am I fulfilling my 2A right to "keep" arms? These are simple questions from this 16 year old mental retard.

So please continue to prefer all day long!

I never said anything about my preferences. The 2nd amendment is an absolute; there is no reasonableness clause. Infringements can come in all degrees, minor and egregious, and determining the gravity of an infringement might be open to subjective opinion. But I don't see how anyone can argue that, given an unqualified right to bear arms, a restriction on the method of bearing those arms would not be an infringement on the right.

Obviously carrying concealed is "bearing arms". And having a gun in your home is "keeping arms". So what? Nobody said the 2nd amendment is being completely infringed. It is being infringed in various ways and degrees of severity, and the nature of the infringement differs from State to State. Like you said, the State telling you where you may carry your gun is an infringement, but also is telling you how you may carry your gun. Everyone can have a different preference but we all have the same right to choose.

Also, don't confuse what the Constitution says with what you, or a majority of citizens, believes to be reasonable. Our framers gave us an absolute right to keep and bear arms. They did not envision rocket launchers and nuclear arms, but that is immaterial. The 2a is an extreme position. According to the Constitution we all have the right to keep and bear any weapons. The original idea was that the People should have access to the same gear as the military, so that any future out of control gov't could be kept in check. If the framers could see the future would they have included a reasonableness clause in the 2a? Maybe, but that's not an interesting question.

You might believe that it would be a disaster to allow any citizen to have weapons of mass destruction, and I might even agree, but our feelings do not change the fact that our current Constitution gives us that right.

 

[MR Redneck]

I think the point is, if they are state employees who are "firearms directors" then their positions are not top secret. I am sure they would be on some state's website. Why would you not want to tell us who they are?

Ok....since no one else has, I will call it.

BS alert!
BS alert!
BS alert!

Oh I see! Just because im not playing by the rules of two people, its all BS..
Tell you what, you two post your names and phone numbers up here, and I'll send it to the people I spoke with and have them call yall.
Is that fair?

 

[matefrio]

The colonists fought back the British with cannons. They weren't just talking about small arms.

 

[APatriot]

I never said anything about my preferences. The 2nd amendment is an absolute; their is no reasonableness clause. Infringements can come in all degrees, minor and egregious, and determining the gravity of an infringement might be open to subjective opinion. But I don't see how anyone can argue that, given an unqualified right to bear arms, a restriction on the method of bearing those arms would not be an infringement on the right.

Obviously carrying concealed is "bearing arms". And having a gun in your home is "keeping arms". So what? Nobody said the 2nd amendment is being completely infringed. It is being infringed in various ways and degrees of severity, and the nature of the infringement differs from State to State. Like you said, the State telling you where you may carry your gun is an infringement, but also is telling you how you may carry your gun. Everyone can have a different preference but we all have the same right to choose.

Also, don't confuse what the Constitution says with what you, or a majority of citizens, believes to be reasonable. Our framers gave us an absolute right to keep and bear arms. They did not envision rocket launchers and nuclear arms, but that is immaterial. The 2a is an extreme position. According to the Constitution we all have the right to keep and bear any weapons. The original idea was that the People should have access to the same gear as the military, so that any future out of control gov't could be kept in check. If the framers could see the future would they have included a reasonableness clause in the 2a? Maybe, but that's not an interesting question.

You might believe that it would be a disaster to allow any citizen to have weapons of mass destruction, and I might even agree, but our feelings do not change the fact that our current Constitution gives us that right.

2A is absolute? In what regard? Where does the 2A argue method of bearing arms? Where does the 2A argue the right to chose how we "bear" arms?

 

[Bithabus]

2A is absolute? In what regard? Where does the 2A argue method of bearing arms? Where does the 2A argue the right to chose how we "bear" arms?

What are you talking about?

This is what the second amendment 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.

The part that makes it an absolute is this:

shall not be infringed

 

[Texan2]

Oh I see! Just because im not playing by the rules of two people, its all BS..
Tell you what, you two post your names and phone numbers up here, and I'll send it to the people I spoke with and have them call yall.
Is that fair?

No, actually its not. You are talking about public officials who have their numbers available via google, yet when asked about who these "state firearms directors" are you clam up and say that you dont want to talk about them.....
your bluff got called. you loose.

 

[APatriot]

What are you talking about?

This is what the second amendment says : The part that makes it an absolute is this:

Again, where does the 2A argue method of bearing arms? Where does the 2A argue the right to choose how we "bear" arms? You are beginning to behave like a few others on this site, in that you "run" from answering the question(s) posed.

 

[Texan2]

or maybe, like others on this site, he has answered them a dozen times already and you are ignoring the answers

 

[matefrio]

Again, where does the 2A argue method of bearing arms? Where does the 2A argue the right to chose how we "bear" arms?

We "Give" the government control over our freedoms state and federal. We have the federal right to bare arms how ever we choose. That's how one state can have open carry and another can restrict the right to open carry. States that have more restrictive laws didn't take those rights away, the people(through their representatives) there gave the state custody over those rights as a matter of choice.

State representatives, even though I wasn't born yet, gave the state of Texas through it's laws, the watch over that right and permission to dictate how we bare arms.

Some of us here simply want the right back so we are pushing our current representatives to represent us and make OC our right again or give us back the right the people relinquished.

Others, and rightly so, don't think our representatives had the authority to take those rights away as the constitution should protect it especially as its enumerated.

The fact that proves you wrong, and that we do have rights to open carry, as a matter of the constitution is that there are states that allow it. We have the right to open carry as well IF we get Texas to change the law taking those rights back that we relinquished at the state level.

Again, there is a high level of frustration when as I and many others think it was never a right that should have been taken away (or possible to be given away) in the first place.




Sorry about the multi edits.