Capitol Armory ad

No OC in San antonio

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!
  • satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Yeah let's just ignore the fact that in the whole history of the country the second has never been constitutionaly recognized or popularly believed to mean what you seem to be claiming.

    bones,

    Have you READ & moreover fully UNDERSTOOD the MILLER decision of the SCOTUS?? - MILLER has been "the law of the land" since before WWII.
    (A careful reading of MILLER makes it plain to any intelligent person that all so-called "gun control laws" are MOOT.)

    yours, satx
    Guns International
     

    bones_708

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 24, 2013
    1,301
    21
    bones,

    Have you READ & moreover fully UNDERSTOOD the MILLER decision of the SCOTUS?? - MILLER has been "the law of the land" since before WWII.
    (A careful reading of MILLER makes it plain to any intelligent person that all so-called "gun control laws" are MOOT.)

    yours, satx

    To bad the supreme court who actually made the ruling disagrees with you. So again never has been legally or popularly recognized to mean what you claim.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    bones_708,

    Once more (a simple YES or NO, please), have you READ & UNDERSTOOD the MILLER DECISION of the SOTUS?
    (IF you have NOT, you are just "blathering" mindlessly about the decision that has been "the law of the land" since before WWII. = MILLER is as plain as BROWN, ROE or MIRANDA & is "settled law", no matter how much that the "anti-gun LOONS" hate that court precedent.)

    Fyi, HELLER & McDONALD simply further explain MILLER.

    The "mass media" big-mouths, the leftists/"progressives" & the ANTI-gun lunatics HATE the MILLER decision, though the smarter ones know what it means; nonetheless, the leftists try to deny the plain text of MILLER.

    yours, satx
     
    Last edited:

    x12aesq

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 18, 2009
    93
    11
    On US 77 kind of north of I-10
    Yeah let's just ignore the fact that in the whole history of the country the second has never been constitutionaly recognized or popularly believed to mean what you seem to be claiming.

    Happens I studied every Supreme Court case prior to 2008 back when I was looking at this exact question. I tried to post my analysis, complete with citations, but it seems there's a word limit on posts. Suffice it to say I think the individual right is well enough established that 42 USC 1943 is implicated, and the only reason we don't see activity in that respect is the sadly liberal leaning of the courts.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    I've read Miller more than once and I understand the unique circumstances. Even given the incompetent representation Miller received before SCOTUS (none), the wording of the decision seems to me to recognize an individual right to bear arms. They were arguing over they type of firearm, not the right to have a firearm. The latter seemed to be tacitly acknowledged by all parties.

    Perhaps I'm wrong, though.
     
    Top Bottom