Texas Constitutional Carry - Thoughts?

[Tcruse]

Yes, for constitutional carry. Yes, to making businesses that post 30.06/30.07 signs responsible for any harm that takes place in them or during travel to/from them.

 

[satx78247]

Tcruse; All,

As I said earlier, commercial enterprises (like stores, cafes, offices & public buildings) have been for over 200 years required by a decision of the SCOTUS to protect "invitees" (for example employees, customers and any other persons who may lawfully enter & remain within such commercial premises) from criminal acts.

This responsibility may be lessened or discharged by hiring security persons, who are armed/capable of protecting the public from such criminal acts by violent felons OR by ceasing to be an activity that is open to the general public.

The FACT that "public accommodations" dislike the SCOTUS's ruling does NOT change the facts of longstanding judicial precedent.

yours, satx

 

[locke_n_load]

Texas has it's own referendums regarding it's militia, both organized and unorganized. They read similarly though.

Can you post the Texas code for militia with that? I thought I remember reading something about non-state regulated groups that have paramilitary functions were illegal by state law. Would be great to read otherwise.

 

[Se7en62]

Can you post the Texas code for militia with that? I thought I remember reading something about non-state regulated groups that have paramilitary functions were illegal by state law. Would be great to read otherwise.

Militia law is pretty grey, but the best interpretation (including the only case law on the subject) is here: http://www.constitution.org/mil/ustx_law.htm

431.010. Organization Prohibited

[FONT=&amp](a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Now, what about that Section 431.010 prohibiting military companies or organizations or parades within municipalities? It clearly expresses hostility to independent local militias within municipalities, but it has no penalties, and does not apply to rural areas. It's main intent seems to be to discourage local officials from calling up the militia.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The only statutes which local officials might invoke against a militia muster within a municipality would be those against exhibiting a firearm in a way that "alarms" the public. However, centuries of common law makes it clear that merely carrying firearms is not to be considered "alarming". The arms must actually be brandished toward someone in a threatening manner. This would not prevent arrests on this ground, of course, but successful prosecution is unlikely if the courts follow the law and the Constitution.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Some of these points are more fully discussed in 29 Tex. Jur., Sections 4 and 5, and in 12 Tex. Jur. 3d., Sections 12-28.[/FONT]

CONCLUSION:

[FONT=&amp]Present U.S. and Texas law clearly fail to implement the requirements for organizing and training the Militia established by the Framers. However, we must also recognize that this failure goes all the way back to 1792, and that such organizing and training are, therefore, left to the people themselves, in the form of independent local militias, which they have a constitutional duty to maintain in a high state of preparedness, even if they get little support from the authorities, and indeed, especially if they get opposition from the authorities.[/FONT]

There's nothing illegal about being associated with a militia. Now you might want to keep it quiet for the preservation of your current lifestyle, friends, and/or profession, but associating with a militia you've personally vetted isn't anything negative.

 

[Brian Boru]

JS interview

http://www.fox4news.com/home/227005931-story

 

[bennettwj]

Constitutional carry is the ultimate goal. It may take some more time to get there though.

I got my LTC in 20 days from the day I completed my online packet with the fingerprints.

 

[busykngt]

satx78247, I'd like to read (first hand) some of those Supreme Court decisions you cite. Do you have a convenient source (or link) to any of them? (Or a synopsis page providing a brief of those concepts you say the SCOTUS has already traditionally ruled on?).

 

[zincwarrior]

satx78247, I'd like to read (first hand) some of those Supreme Court decisions you cite. Do you have a convenient source (or link) to any of them? (Or a synopsis page providing a brief of those concepts you say the SCOTUS has already traditionally ruled on?).

They don't exist. He's conflating multiple separate things.

 

[satx78247]

busykngt; zincwarrior,

SORRY "Zinc" but I'm "conflating" nothing at all. = The SCOTUS case was decided in the early 19th Century, when a criminal entered the premises of a blacksmith shop, assaulted one of the customers with a rock & severely injured the customer. The customer then sued the blacksmith & the SCOTUS found upon appeal that the blacksmith had failed in his duty to protect his customer from criminal acts, while the customer was on the owner's premises.
(That seemingly quite minor case became one of the basic judicial precedents on the responsibilities of commercial enterprises toward their customers.)

As I'm now retired & have NO current access to the post law library, I cannot give you a case citation BUT can tell you which book to look for in most any major law library= THE CENTURY published by Lexus-Nexis Publishing.

In my opinion, once the SCOTUS is safely back in the hands of "Constitution-affirming jurists, ONE of the first cases that is heard should be a case that affirms, once & for all, that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDAL RIGHT, which is just as fundamental to LIBERTY as Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion and which STRIKES DOWN all of the so-called "Gun-control laws", from coast to cast, which infest our nation.

yours, satx

 

[zincwarrior]

Please give me a case cite to support your statement.

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

While you are FREE to hold ANY opinion (including that the Earth is FLAT and/or that "little green men from Mars" are walking about in your neighborhood), The US Supreme Court has held that any commercial enterprise is a PUBLIC ACCOMODATION & therefore such places may NOT lawfully discriminate against gun-owners or anyone else. = That is FACT & facts are in every case superior to unsupported opinions.

Further, the SCOTUS as held for over TWO CENTURIES that commercial property owners are RESPONSIBLE under civil law to protect "invitees" (An invitee is any person who is on the premises of a commercial property for any otherwise lawful reason.) from "all hazards", including criminal acts, "which may be reasonably be foreseen as potential & present hazards".

yours, satx

Didn't realize you were such a fan of bloated government and government intrusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

Wait I just realized, are you saying little green men aren't walking around our neighborhoods?

 

[satx78247]

Younggun,

That ship sailed LONG ago, as you/I discussed on another thread. = The relevant judicial precedents of torts in civil law is settled & has been so for 2 Centuries.

I do NOT believe that the SCOTUS is ever likely to change their reading of "public accommodations" and/or any of the other precedents of civil law, any more than they will overturn BROWN, MILLER, HELLER, GIDEON, MIRANDA, ESCOBEDA or any other of the basic judicial precedents..

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

zincwarrior,

Tell me, YES or NO, (stripped of your usual nonsense,) did you UNDERSTAND my comment # 49 about NOT having current access to a law library??
(Should I use shorter sentences and/or words of only 1 or 2 syllables, so that you will "get" what I wrote??)

I even noted WHICH law book that you can find the case citation in.

yours, satx

 

[txinvestigator]

busykngt; zincwarrior,

SORRY "Zinc" but I'm "conflating" nothing at all. = The SCOTUS case was decided in the early 19th Century, when a criminal entered the premises of a blacksmith shop, assaulted one of the customers with a rock & severely injured the customer. The customer then sued the blacksmith & the SCOTUS found upon appeal that the blacksmith had failed in his duty to protect his customer from criminal acts, while the customer was on the owner's premises.
(That seemingly quite minor case became one of the basic judicial precedents on the responsibilities of commercial enterprises toward their customers.)

As I'm now retired & have no access to the post law library, I cannot give you a case citation BUT can tell you which book to look for in most a major law library= THE CENTURY published by Lexus-Nexis Publishing.

In my opinion, once the SCOTUS is safely back in the hands of "Constitution-affirming jurists, ONE of the first cases that is heard should be a case that affirms, once & for all, that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDAL RIGHT, which is just as fundamental to LIBERTY as Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion and which STRIKES DOWN all of the so-called "Gun-control laws", from coast to cast, which infest our nation.

yours, satx

Please give me a case cite to support your statement.

Since when does the Supreme Court hear civil appeals?

He is clearly confusing the facts of some case he read. It is well know that a business is not responsible for the acts of others (ie criminal acts) unless there is forseeability to that specific act.

SATX is just flat wrong here. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't know how else to put it.

 

[txinvestigator]

busykngt; zincwarrior,

SORRY "Zinc" but I'm "conflating" nothing at all. = The SCOTUS case was decided in the early 19th Century, when a criminal entered the premises of a blacksmith shop, assaulted one of the customers with a rock & severely injured the customer. The customer then sued the blacksmith & the SCOTUS found upon appeal that the blacksmith had failed in his duty to protect his customer from criminal acts, while the customer was on the owner's premises.
(That seemingly quite minor case became one of the basic judicial precedents on the responsibilities of commercial enterprises toward their customers.)

As I'm now retired & have NO current access to the post law library, I cannot give you a case citation BUT can tell you which book to look for in most any major law library= THE CENTURY published by Lexus-Nexis Publishing.

In my opinion, once the SCOTUS is safely back in the hands of "Constitution-affirming jurists, ONE of the first cases that is heard should be a case that affirms, once & for all, that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDAL RIGHT, which is just as fundamental to LIBERTY as Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion and which STRIKES DOWN all of the so-called "Gun-control laws", from coast to cast, which infest our nation.

yours, satx

zincwarrior,

Tell me, YES or NO, (stripped of your usual nonsense,) did you UNDERSTAND my comment # 49 about NOT having current access to a law library??
(Should I use shorter sentences and/or words of only 1 or 2 syllables, so that you will "get" what I wrote??)

I even noted WHICH law book that you can find the case citation in.

yours, satx

I'll use short sentences for you. The internet. You have it. You made a claim. Use internet to prove it.

 

[satx78247]

txinvestigator,
,

SCOTUS has heard civil appeals since the first decades of the American Republic. = Surely you've heard of MARBURY v. MADISON and/or any number of the railroad cases, the "slaughterhouse" cases (that precipitated The Pure Food & Drug Acts by the Congress) & many other civil cases that were decided upon appeal by the SCOTUS.
(Face facts, you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".)

yours, satx

 

[RCK1999]

Oh dear!

In for the TXI smackdown!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

To All,

BEFORE a person "opens their mouth & puts their foot into it" it is a GOOD thing to at least know a few facts about what one speaks & BEFORE he/she makes ignorant comments, mindlessly blathers & prattles on & on about nonsense/foolishness.

Fwiw, I found 22 MAJOR civil judicial precedents by simply "googling": "Landmark Civil Decisions of The US Supreme Court", in less than 10 seconds, including counting the number of cases.

While I am NOT & do NOT wish to be an attorney (my experience as a LEO leaves me with little respect for the "typical attorney", as they are generally FAR less concerned with JUSTICE than winning their case.), I have numerous semester hours at the 500 & 600 level on The Constitution & the major cases at criminal/civil law, as they have been decided by the highest State & Federal courts.
(Furthermore, I try to avoid making comments about subjects of which I know NO facts. = FACTS are NOT subject to forum member's personal opinions; facts are simply facts.)

yours, satx

 

[txinvestigator]

txinvestigator,
,

SCOTUS has heard civil appeals since the first decades of the American Republic. = Surely you've heard of MARBURY v. MADISON and/or any number of the railroad cases, the "slaughterhouse" cases (that precipitated The Pure Food & Drug Acts by the Congress) & many other civil cases that were decided upon appeal by the SCOTUS.
(Face facts, you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".)

yours, satx

Marbury was not a civil case. It was a judicial review case. Care to try again?