My Legislative Wish List

[APatriot]

We have the freedom of how we carry a gun in our homes.... where do we get that freedom from? It's not the government who gives us permission to do so it's our freedoms and rights given to us in the constitution of life liberty and justice including those specifically enumerated in the bill of rights under the 2nd amendment.

You might want to "freshin" up with the ongoing argument. No one is arguing it's the government which gives us our freedoms and rights. BTW, it appears you may not be up to speed on the difference between Unalienable Rights (which BTW, is Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - justice is not one of the 3 unalienable rights) and the Bill of Rights. What is that difference? Does anyone know, or should I give you time to google? Time is up. Unalienable Rights emanate from Natural Law (God), and the Bill of Rights from the US Constitution. Guess what? The Bill of Rights was not even the product of our Founding Fathers (The Federalists - have you heard of the Federalist papers?). The Bill of Rights emanated from the Anti-Federalists during the Constitutional Convention. Our Founding Fathers had to be dragged to the table to accept the Bill of Rights!!

I won't even bother asking who were the 3 main Anti-Federalists responsible for our Bill of Rights. I think I have provided too much information already creating information overload for most of you. Ah heck. One of the three said something famous: "Give me liberty, or give me death" ...hint

Class is over for the day. Have a good evening folks.

 

[APatriot]

I'm trying to show you that infringements on "method" and infringements on "bearing arms" are the same thing.

And, carry in a wheelbarrow certainly would be "bearing arms". The gun would be on or about your person.

If you want to say so please do. Keep digging that hole.

 

[Fisherman777]

Again, this is really too easy. I was hoping for much better.

It is easy. Does it have to be hard?

 

[Bithabus]

If you want to say so please do. Keep digging that hole.

The courts say that, not me.

In any event you stated that when the method of carry is so restricted (tactical wheelbarrow) that in your opinion the carrier would no longer be bearing arms. If we accept that the inability to bear arms is an infringement on our right to bear arms, by syllogism the restriction on method has infringed our right to bear arms.

Stay in school.

 

[Fisherman777]

What if State law allowed you to carry a handgun openly, but not concealed. Do you think that would be an infringement?

Probably. He prefers one way so we all have to do it that way.

 

[matefrio]

Was your message addressed to me? I hope not for a variety of reasons, but for Pete's sake, your credibility just went to zero by quoting George McGovern - a freaking statist!!!

That makes it kinda sad when even a statist recognizes what it takes to be a patriot. How our rights and freedoms are protected in the constitution, how our government should be subject to it's citizens are all topics well covered here for now.

Some things are patriotic in name only.. take the USA Patriot Act. Shouldn't something like the USA Patriot Act with such a name be in the best interest of our freedoms and not so blatantly used against us by giving up our freedoms for a bit of security?

 

[APatriot]

The courts say that, not me.

In any event you stated that when the method of carry is so restricted (tactical wheelbarrow) that in your opinion the carrier would no longer be bearing arms. If we accept that the inability to bear arms is an infringement on our right to bear arms, by syllogism the restriction on method has infringed our right to bear arms.

Stay in school.

The Court of Your Opinion no doubt....

 

[APatriot]

That makes it kinda sad when even a statist recognizes what it takes to be a patriot. How our rights and freedoms are protected in the constitution, how our government should be subject to it's citizens are all topics well covered here for now.

Some things are patriotic in name only.. take the USA Patriot Act. Shouldn't something like the USA Patriot Act with such a name be in the best interest of our freedoms and not so blatantly against giving up our freedoms for a bit of security?

Please tell me how I can become a Patriot. Please do so, so I can "eat your lunch"....lol

 

[APatriot]

Probably. He prefers one way so we all have to do it that way.

2A simply does not specify/address method of bearing arms. It simply has nothing to do with "my way". Get dressed before you go out in public, or said in another way, make sure your gun has bullets before you go to a gun fight.

 

[Fisherman777]

We have the freedom of how we carry a gun in our homes.... where do we get that freedom\right from? It's not the government who gives us permission to do so it's our freedoms and rights acknowledged by the constitution of life liberty and justice including those specifically enumerated in the bill of rights under the 2nd amendment.

Fixed it.

 

[matefrio]

2A simply does not specify/address method of bearing arms. It simply has nothing to do with "my way". Get dressed before you go out in public, or said in another way, make sure your gun has bullets before you go to a gun fight.

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights.

John Cockrum v. The State.

What was the motivation that changed that decision in 1872 and the sudden motivation behind the Southern states restricting open carry?

As you are so fond of I'll give you a hint. The answer is black and white but more white than black....

 

[matefrio]

Fixed it.

Thanks, Getting sloppy, it's late.

 

[APatriot]

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights.

John Cockrum v. The State.

What was the motivation that changed that decision in 1872 and the sudden motivation behind the Southern states restricting open carry?

As you are so fond of I'll give you a hint. The answer is black and white but more white than black....

Again, since you are late to the argument. My point is the 2A does not specifically address, support, or even negate, for that matter, OC, or any "method" of bearing arms. Therefore, if a state wants to authorize OC under the 2A they are free to do so. My point is that OC folks use a fallacy of composition to their argument when they say a state which provides CC, but does not permit OC, is infringing upon their right to bear arms since the 2A does not specifically address, support, or even negate, any "method" to bear arms.

I know I am smart, so you don't have to admit it.

 

[matefrio]

Again, since you are late to the argument. My point is the 2A does not specifically address, support, or even negate, for that matter, OC, or any "method" of bearing arms. Therefore, if a state wants to authorize OC under the 2A they are free to do so. My point is that OC folks use a fallacy of composition to their argument when they say a state which provides CC, but does not permit OC, is infringing upon their right to bear arms since the 2A does not specifically address, support, or even negate, any "method" to bear arms.

If there were no state laws prohibiting open carry could we? We both know we could.
Where or what would we point to to defend ourselves if there were no state laws prohibiting open carry or concealed carry and we got hauled into jail for open carrying?

Would the procicutor state "The 2A does not specifically address, support, or even negate, for that matter, OC, or any "method" of bearing arms he's GUILTY!"

 

[APatriot]

If there were no state laws prohibiting open carry could we? We both know we could.
Where or what would we point to to defend ourselves if there were no state laws prohibiting open carry and we got hauled into jail for open carrying?

If a state authorized OC, so be it. I wouldn't for tactical reasons. I don't want the "bad guy" to know I am armed.

Again, the argument I have with the OC folks is their fallacious use of the 2A as I previously stated. However, I will have to admit, I do like to "take them to school".

I do have to end class. I have been bored this evening which is why my class on site has over-extended.

 

[matefrio]

Even if I agreed the people CAN let the state regulate the right to open carry. It's the people's right to take back if they want it back.

The right to open carry or even carry is in my opinion protected by the second amendment as keep and bare arms to me is as clear as bear feet is to someone else. You might as well be arguing that "arms" are what are attached to your body and not anything to do with guns if bare feet is waring socks. :-)

Joking aside now the framers were most likely talking about "bare" as in to have or possess. By not addressing the issue of how arms are bared they left that right to us to decide what to do with the people voted and the states made laws and restrictions for own reasons.

Anything to do with the right to keep and bare arms should be held under strict scrutiny and as I believe that the current laws addressing how and where we can carry were not subject to strict scrutiny therefore they infringe on my rights.

No one has come up with a good enough reason that CC or OC is a bad thing. I don't think the state of Texas should be allowed to control the right\freedom to carry as one pleases or question why anyone would want to carry that way or the other.

 

[MR Redneck]

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights.

John Cockrum v. The State.

What was the motivation that changed that decision in 1872 and the sudden motivation behind the Southern states restricting open carry?

As you are so fond of I'll give you a hint. The answer is black and white but more white than black....

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. E.J. Davis amended the Texas Constitution in attempt to deny the 14th amendment.
The popular topic we often discuss about " You can carry a gun on someone elses property because its against the law, well thats some more E.J. Davis infringement on rights. This was established to keep Freedmen form carrying weapon on property they traveled to. To prevent Freedmen form carrying handguns all together, E.J. Davis wrote the " Legislature shall have the power to regulate how arms were worn" in 1871.
In 1869 E.J. Davis suspended the writ ot habeas corpus and declaired martial law.
E.J. Davis established a state police force," Police State", to arrest Legislatures who opposed his policies so Radicals could gain majorities to pass his bills.
The state police force promoted " official murder and legalized oppression"!

Today, Article 1 section 23 of the Texas Constitution remain close to the way E.J. Davis amended it to. The meaning is still the same. INFRIMGEMENT ON RIGHTS!
Gun Control in Texas was established to prevent Freedmen the 2nd amendemnt right!
All of this was nothing more than an effort to deny the 14th amendment to Texans.

NEXT!
Oh yea, Cockrum v. state doesnt apply because it was before the Davis infringement.

 

[matefrio]

If a state authorized OC, so be it.

Slaps forhead.

We are asking for the state make it legal again to open carry because we want our right back to control how we decide to carry. The state did not take our choice to open carry away from us we gave it to the state. Now we want it back and we can take it back because it's our right if we want it back.

We authorized the state to take control of the gun laws so the state can't authorize us to open carry they simply hand back our right to.

To put it in other terms:
I no longer want to give you or a group of you who think that open carry is a bad thing the right to decide for me and dictated though state laws how I carry. If there are enough of folks like me that think the same way we may just get the freedom back to choose how to carry our guns around despite the best intentions of folks concerned for the welfare of me, themselves or others. We can do this because open carry is a right not a privilege.

 

[Texan2]

Im not giving it to ya. You cant google the director, they have to transfer you to him!
Do like I said and google the choice states firearms licensing.

WTF??? THat is the most bizarre statement you have posted yet. (actually its probably not) First you said to Google these people...NOW you are saying they cant be found on Google. This is quite entertaining. If a Director existed, he could be found on Google...but he doesnt. If any rational person spoke to govt. officials he/she would not be so hesitant to share with fellow gun advocates who those officials are. You sound like a 3rd grader caught in a lie. You CANT give a name because the people you claim to have talked to dont exist. There are no "State Firearms Directors".
No amount of trying to manipulate this conversation will make one appear...on Google or in real life.

 

[Fisherman777]

WTF??? THat is the most bizarre statement you have posted yet. (actually its probably not) First you said to Google these people...NOW you are saying they cant be found on Google. This is quite entertaining. If a Director existed, he could be found on Google...but he doesnt. If any rational person spoke to govt. officials he/she would not be so hesitant to share with fellow gun advocates who those officials are. You sound like a 3rd grader caught in a lie. You CANT give a name because the people you claim to have talked to dont exist. There are no "State Firearms Directors".
No amount of trying to manipulate this conversation will make one appear...on Google or in real life.

Don't shoot, but maybe it's some other title and maybe you can get past that and give him a break. I do know he's talked on the phone to a lot of officials in other states. People who among other things, deal with firearms laws and such. If I think back, I can remember a couple of times I've talked with people on the phone and when I try to remember their title, I can't so I call him "city council guy" or something. Same difference! Not a big deal to me. I understood the point.

Point being (among others), how can it be that another state can charge only $40 for the chl with no class required and Texas accepts it, (A resident Texan can even get one if you travel there to get it), while we pay what we pay and have to pay for the class and sit for 10 hours through a class that is a joke? Sorry about the long sentence. Probably could have found a better way to say it.