Texas Constitutional Carry - Thoughts?

[Younggun]

No reports needed.


I've seen no insults from Zink. Only requests that claims be verified. And you have been rather harsh. Luckily, most on TGT have thick enough skin that it's ignored.


You've made claims in the past and refused to cite anything to support, instead claiming anyone who questions your opinion is foolish and vulgar, and typically that they are being laughed at by all the other members of the forum. It does wear thin.

Cite evidence to support your claims or move on. Otherwise the circle of opinion and challenging never ends, and without evidence it's nothing more than opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

EDIT: deleted per YGs post above.

[FONT][/FONT]

 

[satx78247]

Younggun,

What "wears thin" is hatefulness, meanness of spirit & a FEW members who just seemingly cannot restrain themselves from using "4-letter words"/vulgarity on the forum & in front of ladies/children.

IF I had current access to any edition of THE CENTURY, I would post the case cite for "the blacksmith shop" civil case, as it would take me at least 2-5 minutes to find the case in that book.
Further, it has been my LONG experience that those who constantly demand PROOF/LINK for any comment have at least one of the following reasons for their repeated demands:
1. The "demanding person" is wrong & doesn't want to admit that they are in error.
2. The person doesn't like what was said, dislikes another member and/or wants everyone else to agree with their opinions.,
3. They want to waste someone's time doing "homework", even when the information is widely/commonly known to be factual.
(When a person does give them a source, the "questioner" then says, "I don't accept that as proof. Give me other sources." - Demanding "sources" takes no effort; proving things isn't nearly as easy.)
or
4. In a small percentage of cases, they really want/need the information that they requested.
(When I believe that it is truly necessary to find a particular source, I've been known to go look the exact data up.)

ImVho, "Wildcat Diva" (post # 78) is correct. - Nobody is required to prove anything on a discussion forum.

yours, satx

 

[RCK1999]

You know what they say about opinions------

They are like a-------, everybody has one, but they usually really stink!


I hope I didn't offend you (not that I really care-your reputation is well known here).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[busykngt]

First of all, I'd like to say I'm the guilty party in asking "for proof" as I inherently didn't (& still don't) buy into satx78247's basic premise that it's "settled law" that private property / private shop owners are responsible for safeguarding the general public against third party criminal actions. I very sincerely asked satx78247 to point me in the right direction to any source data he had (or was relying on). He did this.
I'll say again: he did this. Now, I will go research/read perhaps the same items he did and see if it offers a persuasive enough argument to have me change my mind. As it stands right now, I'm inclined to believe it is NOT settled law and citing a single case from a long ago period in our history, doesn't necessarily make it so. I personally think (spoiler alert: Opinion here), in the more modern era, private property rights are as strong as they've ever been and perhaps, more so. So that may mean, this argument cannot be definitively settled until or unless a new case would be heard by the SCOTUS nowadays. In any case, one thing remains clear to me, a "victim" of such a crime (or his/her family), would have every right to bring a lawsuit against whomever they choose (to include, the shop owner). Now whether they'd win or not remains to be seen.
Second point I'll make is, feel free to blame me. There really is no reason for personal attacks against one another. We're all here due to our love of guns, shooting, etc. I don't get offended - at least, too often - because in the overall scheme of things I know everyone is entitled to their own WRONG damn opinions Peace guys *


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

 

[Vaquero]

First of all, I'd like to say I'm the guilty party in asking "for proof" as I inherently didn't (& still don't) buy into satx78247's basic premise that it's "settled law" that private property / private shop owners are responsible for safeguarding the general public against third party criminal actions. I very sincerely asked satx78247 to point me in the right direction to any source data he had (or was relying on). He did this.
I'll say again: he did this. Now, I will go research/read perhaps the same items he did and see if it offers a persuasive enough argument to have me change my mind. As it stands right now, I'm inclined to believe it is NOT settled law and citing a single case from a long ago period in our history, doesn't necessarily make it so. I personally think (spoiler alert: Opinion here), in the more modern era, private property rights are as strong as they've ever been and perhaps, more so. So that may mean, this argument cannot be definitively settled until or unless a new case would be heard by the SCOTUS nowadays. In any case, one thing remains clear to me, a "victim" of such a crime (or his/her family), would have every right to bring a lawsuit against whomever they choose (to include, the shop owner). Now whether they'd win or not remains to be seen.
Second point I'll make is, feel free to blame me. There really is no reason for personal attacks against one another. We're all here due to our love of guns, shooting, etc. I don't get offended - at least, too often - because in the overall scheme of things I know everyone is entitled to their own WRONG damn opinions Peace guys *


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

Good luck. I've worn out Google trying to find the "liable blacksmith" case.

 

[easy rider]

Wow! After reading all the retorts I forgot how it went from thoughts about constitutional carry to what the SCOTUS will or will not hear.

 

[satx78247]

busykngt; Vaquero,

Fwiw, I called the library at St Mary's University (the sole law school in San Antonio) this PM (because of this controversy) & was told politely but quite firmly that they do NOT allow anyone except law students, St Mary's staff & the faculty to use any of their law library's materials.
I then called the UT Library in Austin & was told the same thing. - A librarian at UT told me that I should call the South Texas College of Law & Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston & inquire at those schools.)

A librarian at Thurgood Marshall said that I may read materials at their library IF I do so in person. - As I'm planning a trip to Houston (to attend an antique Ford truck show & perhaps go to Houston sooner than that to look at/possibly buy yet another M-B diesel 300CD coupe) relatively soon anyway, I'll plan to go to their library, find the case & Xerox the data in THE CENTURY & any other similar books that I can find.

Note: MANY major judicial precedents at law start over seemingly MINOR/long ago cases. For example:
1. The MILLER decision started over "criminal possession of" a single-barrel 16-gauge "sawed off" shotgun (valued at less than 10 dollars) & a 30 dollar liquor store robbery, which the decision described as a "pistol-like criminal instrumentality" that "was suitable only to rob a liquor store". = MILLER (Rather than HELLER or McDONALD) is the MAIN precedent on the 2nd Amendment, burglar tools laws, "criminal instrumentalities", who the militia IS, what a "militia weapon" IS/IS NOT, what the duties of the militia are, & several other important legal issues.
2. The GIDEON decision started over a theft of about 10 dollars in change that was stolen from a pool-hall & the failure of FL to appoint lawyers in "minor criminal cases". = As a result of Clarence Earl Gideon believing that he was maltreated in that petty theft case, EVERY criminal defendant gets an attorney to represent them.
3. The BROWN decision started over a pair of parents, who wanted ONE little girl to go to a better elementary school than the only one that was nearby. = That case against the local ISD ended "legal school segregation".
and
4. The GIBBON case started over 2 steamboat companies being angry over having to buy a New York & a federal license to operate a steamboat on the same river. = The "steamboat license case" resulted in the SCOTUS deciding that federal laws overcome & make moot all conflicting State & local laws/regulation & ordinances.

yours,, satx

 

[Younggun]

Younggun,

What "wears thin" is hatefulness, meanness of spirit & a FEW members who just seemingly cannot restrain themselves from using "4-letter words"/vulgarity on the forum & in front of ladies/children.

IF I had current access to any edition of THE CENTURY, I would post the case cite for "the blacksmith shop" civil case, as it would take me at least 2-5 minutes to find the case in that book.
Further, it has been my LONG experience that those who constantly demand PROOF/LINK for any comment have at least one of the following reasons for their repeated demands:
1. The "demanding person" is wrong & doesn't want to admit that they are in error.
2. The person doesn't like what was said, dislikes another member and/or wants everyone else to agree with their opinions.,
3. They want to waste someone's time doing "homework", even when the information is widely/commonly known to be factual.
(When a person does give them a source, the "questioner" then says, "I don't accept that as proof. Give me other sources." - Demanding "sources" takes no effort; proving things isn't nearly as easy.)
or
4. In a small percentage of cases, they really want/need the information that they requested.
(When I believe that it is truly necessary to find a particular source, I've been known to go look the exact data up.)

ImVho, "Wildcat Diva" (post # 78) is correct. - Nobody is required to prove anything on a discussion forum.

yours, satx

The site has a profanity filter that should help with any language you'd rather not see. Shoot me a PM if you'd like and I can help get it set up.

It's also switched on automatically for anyone under 18 or for visitors without an account. It was a great effort by the management to make it so people were free to speak while allowing those who wish to it see vulgarity a way to block it.


Just holler if you have any trouble. Happy to help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RCK1999]

He is well aware of the profanity filter that is available. It has been explained to him many times. He simply likes to use this defense/complaint to criticize another poster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

RCK1999,

NOPE. - Fwiw, you are 100% WRONG about our motivation. = Do you have a crystal ball OR perhaps the entails of an owl that allows you to determine the motivations of persons, whom you don't know & have never even met??

We simply don't believe that our forum, which includes a lot of different sorts of persons of many different beliefs, religions, ages, etc., should have to have a "obscenity filter" to keep from exposing our members to NEEDLESS vulgarity. - My lady & I see NO good reason for allowing gratuitous vulgarity/obscene language in a gun rights forum.
(This forum is NOT the wall of a public toilet & should NOT be a place where a few people believe they are free to smear their filth about, in public.)

yours, "Duckie" & satx

 

[RCK1999]

And that is your opinion, nothing more. The management of this site seem to feel otherwise by offering a profanity filter for those like you that prefer not to be exposed to such things. If that is not satisfactory to you, you are welcome to leave!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[busykngt]

satx78247, I would not ask you to go to that trouble; didn't mean to turn this into a pissing contest. Besides, this is one of those topics I suspect IF enough research was done, that Younggun or I (or others, for that matter) could find several examples in the law of counterpoints. My point is, while I'm sure "the law" provides that a shop owner must provide some reasonable expectation [by the public] of safety & security while on their premises - such as warnings of freshly mopped, slick floors & the like - there are most likely limitations to such assurances. For instance would a criminal hurting a customer be considered an "act of God" or some other act beyond the shop owner's ability to control? Where is the line drawn? I'm guessing situations such as that, are likely candidates to be 'settled in court'. And furthermore, I'm not sure a Judge & jury in California would yield the same results as a Judge & jury in Texas!


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

RCK1999,

YES, it is our opinion, which is likely just as valid as yours and/or any other member's opinion. = IF you believe that we're wrong, you are also free to leave.
(I'm sure that you can find a crayon & a restroom wall somewhere to befoul, IF that is your choice.)

yours, satx

 

[Younggun]

SATX,

I tried to offer help for your issue, you seem to have declined.


Since that is the case I will ask that you chill out. The forum is run this way FOR its members. This will not change. I'm sorry that isn't too your liking but it suits 99.9% of the membership.


Let it go. Your insults are just as common and foul as any other comments on this forum, you simply use different words to say the same and do so much more often.

To everyone else, let's get back to the subject of constitutional carry. The side track is obviously going nowhere.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RCK1999]

My opinion is that I really don't give a shit about it, so save your condescending insults and use them on someone else!

Now what was this thread about before you hijacked it ?

IMHO-let's get back on track!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[busykngt]

I support Constitutional Carry in Texas - it's my belief, that's what the "framers" intended with the Second Amendment. However, we may not see it passed in this session - it just may be too much of a "giant step" for some of the law makers. So, if we need to take baby steps to get there, I'm ok with that. (Not really, but I'll take *some* progress as opposed to no progress). So any of those bills that tend to head in the right direction, would get some level of support from me (like the bill to eliminate the "licensing fee"). Just read where some state dropped their age for handgun purchases/ownership from 21 to 18 (Tennessee, I think?).


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

busykngt,

You, imVho, are one of the "credits to this forum" & I'm truly sorry if anything on this thread has "splashed onto" you. - That was never my intent.
(IF you were offended personally by my comments, mea culpa.)

I also didn't mean for my comments about a judicial case to turn into a "on the Worldwideweird brawl". = I'm just tired of a very FEW people, who dislike anyone disagreeing with their personal/unsupported/undereducated opinions & their evident desire to be HATEFUL, VULGAR of speech & generally MEAN-spirited to anyone, who offends their "tender little feelings".

Otoh, at this juncture, I'm disgusted enough to make a trip to the law school to prove that I'm TRUTHFUL & those who attacked my veracity are "talking through their hat".

yours, satx

 

[busykngt]

Rep. Strickland seems to be a good guy in authoring so many pro-gun bills. What's his story? (Too bad there aren't more representatives like him).


Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

 

[zincwarrior]

busykngt; Vaquero,

Fwiw, I called the library at St Mary's University (the sole law school in San Antonio) this PM (because of this controversy) & was told politely but quite firmly that they do NOT allow anyone except law students, St Mary's staff & the faculty to use any of their law library's materials.
I then called the UT Library in Austin & was told the same thing. - A librarian at UT told me that I should call the South Texas College of Law & Thurgood Marshall School of Law in Houston & inquire at those schools.)

I always thought the UH Law library looked just this side of a Hollywood version of a 19th century New Orleans bordello.
But that was a few centuries ago and they might have updated it (I hope they updated, I just realized how long its been, man I feel old now).