Texas Constitutional Carry - Thoughts?

[txinvestigator]

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.

I agree, you should do that.

 

[satx78247]

txinvestigator,

ROTFLMRAO. - Would you care to review your several comments to this thread for ACCURACY so that you don't continue to LOOK foolish/uneducated/ignorant to most every reasonably well educated member of this forum??

Generally speaking, judicial precedents are divided into CRIMINAL & CIVIL cases.
(Judicial review cases are NOT criminal cases, therefore they are considered to be civil cases.)

Also, so that you don't continue to be laughed AT, may I suggest that you look at google.com & search for : "Landmark civil cases of the US Supreme Court". = My quick search found TWENTY-TWO major civil precedents of the SCOTUS.
(Btw, ONE of those listed 22 major civil precedents is MARBURY v. MADISON, decided in 1803.)

just my OPINIONS, satx

 

[diesel1959]

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.

Not backing SATX here; however, the US Supreme Court has ALWAYS heard appeals of both civil AND criminal cases--once those cases have reached and been decided in the court of last resort from within a State, civil litigants are permitted to appeal for writ of certiorari to SCOTUS.

In Texas, civil cases also are appealed to the Texas Supreme Court (after they've been dealt with by one of the 14 Appellate Districts). Criminal cases are appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (also, after they've been dealt with by one of the 14 Appellate Districts EXCEPT for appeal in the case of a death sentence case).

Kelo v. City of New London is an example of a civil case decided by SCOTUS--involving eminent domain.

 

[Mike_from_Texas]

All for constitutional carry.

Also in for the entertainment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[satx78247]

Mike_from_Texas,

I believe we can easily get Constitutional Carry in 2017 in Texas, provided that the extremist MORONS & CRETINS in SILLY hats, Bermuda shorts, "wandering about the Capitol grounds" in their undershorts carrying firearms, those who make threats to members of the legislature & who make foolish comments to the press can be encouraged to stay home OR if we can figure out how to MUZZLE them.

Even in 2015 things would have gone much easier IF the "idiot fringe" had stayed away.
As a "regular gun-owner", who watched the antics of the "cartoon characters" (& who went to Austin & made jackasses of themselves), I was embarrassed to have the "OC loons" representing our side on TV.

just my OPINION, satx

 

[busykngt]

satx78247, you mean to tell me that going to their offices in the capitol building and "talking treason" with an AR strapped to your back IS NOT the way to 'win over' Texas legislators? (My, my... who would've thunk it?) They was jest tryin' to help the cause!


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

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

Unless you provide actual case cites from SCOTUS, you're what we call in the legal community "full of shit."

 

[TheDan]

I believe we can easily get Constitutional Carry in 2017 in Texas, provided that the extremist MORONS & CRETINS in SILLY hats, Bermuda shorts, those who make threats to members of the legislature & who make foolish comments to the press can be encouraged to stay home OR if we can figure out how to MUZZLE them.

If a legislator votes against Constitutional Carry because someone made them upset, then they are displaying the same petulant child attitude that you're condemning others for.

The legislators are the ones with the power and the responsibility. They are to blame for it not passing, not a few activist clowns.

 

[locke_n_load]

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



CONCLUSION:



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.

Much appreciated Se7en62. Was always a little confused with "may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms" - I always thought that line meant no military company period, but apparently it only applies in public places. Good to know otherwise, thanks.

 

[busykngt]

TheDan, while I agree with your basic premise and the sentiments expressed in your last post, I think their actions went way beyond the pale. IF they were just clowns, that's one thing but their threats of violence (both overt & implied) caused Texas legislators to have security panic buttons installed in their offices. This is certainly NO WAY to advance your cause! Were they clowns? Yep, undoubtedly. But did they cause enough anxiety among Texas legislators to hinder the very cause they were supposedly seeking support for? Yes again, undoubtedly.

 

[satx78247]

zincwarrior,

Given your SILLY response in # 67, the members of the forum, who have an IQ within normal limits, will continue to presume that you are just a "Little Troll" OR that you really are unable to respond to simple questions without being vulgar.

LAUGHING AT you, DUNCE.

yours, satx

 

[zincwarrior]

zincwarrior,

Given your SILLY response in # 67, the members of the forum, who have an IQ within normal limits, will continue to presume that you are just a "Little Troll" OR that you really are unable to respond to simple questions without being vulgar.

LAUGHING AT you, DUNCE.

yours, satx

While my children may agree with you on my limited intellectual capacity (of course one is applying for a PhD in math, and the other was auto accepted to the UTA School of Science-haven't heard from Berkeley or U of Chicago yet) your post is a distraction from the fact you refused to actually cite SCOTUS cases to support your statements.
Please cite those court cases for review else we'll have to consider your argument unsubstantiated and at best opinion.

I guess we should get back to the post topic though.
Thoughts personally?
1. Doubtful it will happen right now.
2. Having said that, if it miraculously did, given the refreshing reception etc that occurred with the licensed OC, I wouldn't be personally worried.
3. If #2 does occur though, I would expect the number of locales putting up .30-07 signs or the equivalent would shoot up dramatically if people did indeed OC with frequency, such that the ability to OC would be effectively moot anywhere except your car or your personal property.

 

[satx78247]

busykngt,

Fwiw, the "guy in his drawers & shower shoes" (but wearing nothing else), with a shotgun slung over his shoulder & "cussing the government" LOUDLY in front of The Capitol made us all LOOK foolish and/or simply crazy.
(The media will always "cover" the lunatics/weirdos/crazies & ignore the folks, who dress conservatively, speak logically & in normal tones.)

yours, satx

 

[namanc6]

I think we should definitely have the right. Open carry isn't my thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

locke_n_load,

NOPE. - Private Militias are prohibited from "parading" in municipalities but NOT in the rural areas of Texas.

Also, the MILLER decision of the SCOTUS of 1939 (which judicial decision supersedes State laws/regulations) states that the members of the militia are every person, "who is CAPABLE of bearing arms in defense of home, State & Nation".
(YES, that means that the elderly, disabled persons, women & children ARE subject to call for militia duty, if the manmade/natural emergency and/or "state of disorder" is severe enough to require their service.)

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

busykngt,

AS USUAL, you are 100% correct. = One of the clowns, who got LOTS of "cable TV time" here in San Antonio, showed up for a meeting with a legislator wearing dirty "strap overalls", no shirt, a ragged straw hat & with bare feet. - He reportedly entered a representative's office & started SHOUTING that, "We know where you live & you're gonna be real sorry if you don't do what we want".
(Thankfully, he was escorted from the Capitol building before he could cause any more trouble or do anything unlawful.)

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

Se7en62,

It depends on which State that you are talking about & which Private Militia group, as to whether the group is "well-regarded" or NOT. = For example, THE RICHMOND HOWITZERS of VA, THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNORGANIZED MILITIA & THE CHARLESTON CIVIL MILITIA of SC are "quite popular with" the general population/government of their respective States & those units have served "with distinction" for many decades in times of war, peace & natural emergency.
(One of "the inside jokes" in SC is that you cannot belong to "The S.C.U.M." unless you are "quite well-to-do", are from a "old family" and/or are "politically influential".)

yours, satx

 

[Wildcat Diva]

Unless you provide actual case cites from SCOTUS, you're what we call in the legal community "full of shit."

but... this is just a TGT forum general discussion, not a legal debate. Anyone is free to share their general understanding and others are free to call BS or whatever. No one is REQUIRED to prove anything before the discussion moves forward.

 

[zincwarrior]

but... this is just a TGT forum general discussion, not a legal debate. Anyone is free to share their general understanding and others are free to call BS or whatever. No one is REQUIRED to prove anything before the discussion moves forward.

Except of course when they are actively insulting other members and making fundamental statements of fact that don't coincide with reality. You can't say SCOTUS said property owners are responsible -insult others who disagree - and then hide when someone calls you on it.

I didn't report SATX for the insults but I did in fact ask that he support his argument.

 

[satx78247]

zincwarrior,

Speaking of insults, you seem to be VERY PROFICIENT at being NASTY & HATEFUL, using VULGAR speech & acting FOOLISH but, sadly, at very little else. = IF you chose to hold your tongue and/or acted decently toward other forum members, you wouldn't be laughed AT & thought by some members to be, "not quite bright".

Feel FREE to report me to "management" or anyone else that you like, as the MAJOR fault is yours alone, as I've NOT used a single VULGAR or OBSCENE word/comment on this thread or anywhere else on the forum. = You just might get more than you bargained for.

yours, satx