Outstanding, thanks for the link!
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/17/2010 4:01:55 AM PST by marktwain
“It is unconstitutional for States to infringe on that right.”
For most of them yes, but in some states the people of the same state had ceded to that state the power to infringe upon that right thus as they had ceded to the same state the power to infringe upon our natural right to kill.
It’s called a State Constitution either get uses to it, or get uses to the arbitrary dictates of the central Government what rights we can and cannot have.
“The 2nd Amendment is not limited to the Federal government. It is one of the amendments which does NOT refer to Congress.”
That would be why we passed the 9th and 10th amendment to clarify for people like you that just because something is prohibited or allowed to the Federal Government does not mean that it is prohibited to the State governments. It is only prohibited to the state governments if specifically specified, such as in article 1 section 10:
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html
“Unless a place can guarantee that self-defense will not be needed within that place, then our right to self defense by ourselves is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”
Is this an exception you inserted or is it an exception the court invited, either way it like the spesfic prohibition upon the peoples right to so empower their state in their state constitution is not mentioned, and therefore does not exist.
I am as pro gun rights as you are but by your logic we stand to lose much more then just our gun rights.
indeed in the “bill of rights” congress is only mentioned in the preamble, which you negated to read, and the 1 first amendment. The reason why they are spelled out in the first amendment is rather clear, the 1st amendment is a restriction upon the law making power of congress not the executive functions of the rest of the Federal government, such as the military.
Were the 1st amendment applied to the executive we would be quite unable to keep secretes such as our military deployments and intelligences.
NO my friend the “Bill of rights” as
* Indicated in the Preamble.
* Reinforced in the 9th and 10th amendment,
* and applied until the 1925 Federal court usurpation.
Applies exclusively to the Federal Government of the United States.
Those are excellent clips. I've included links links for everyone else.
Here it is: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865#
It is also notable that the second part, the "rebuttal" talk from the officer, begins with the officer saying "everything he just said is right."
Ah, so then the States can forbid women, and people under 21, from voting!
Wait... what about the prohibition, in the unamended Constitution, from Ex Post Facto law and Bills of Attainder?
“Ah, so then the States can forbid women, and people under 21, from voting!
Wait... what about the prohibition, in the unamended Constitution, from Ex Post Facto law and Bills of Attainder?”
Thats the way it was prior to the 20th century, and if you ask me thats the way it needs to return to prevent a most dangerous source of abuses from being abused to secure power more or less permanently.
Marker
“”Needs to be in a case, or could probably be stored in the trunk, console glove box, etc. “”
No, it does not. It needs to be concealed, not locked away. For example, Stick it in your jacket pocket, or in a removable holster, inside the pocket on the door,.... endless places to be concealed.
The Motorist Protection Act gives the owner/driver of the vehicle the same privileges as sitting in the recliner at home, just concealed.
more info or research try www.texaschlforum.com There maybe 15 or 20 instructors on there at a time, and lots of very well educated license holders. Plus a few folks that helped write Texas Laws.
fwiw, there is some bad info in this thread.
You are being told the law correctly, and there is a difference. If you feel that an accidental view of your weapon makes you guilty of violating a rule, then you may be prone to volunteering for punishment that you do not deserve.
If it is not intentional, it is not violation. There is case law to support this. In fact, when presented in court it has lead to immediate dismissals.
If you want to be sure you cya try www.texaschlforum.com I’m not the only instructor that hangs out there.
A friend of mine in Garland, TX parked his Suburban on Sunday afternoon at a bowling alley. When he returned to the parking lot, the Burb was gone (not too unusual with that model back then). When the police arrived, he advised them that he had left a loaded .357 magnum under the seat, therefore they should be extra cautious if they stopped the truck. He was careful to add that he had been planning to go on to the shooting range next. That was believed to be legal at that time. Turned out that the Burb was found, empty and abandoned a few blocks away, with the piece still hidden under the seat.
I was responding to the question about taking your gun to the shooting range. Of course, it’s no different than having your gun in the car for personal protection. If I didn’t have a CHL, I’d probably be less likely to conceal the gun on my person though.
That was a miracle!
Outstanding, thanks for the link!
*sigh* — You missed my point: the Constitution EXPRESSLY prohibits the *States* from enacting Ex Post Facto laws; it has been gutted since Calder v. Bull [1798] wherein the court determined that such prohibition is applicable only to *criminal* law.
They then get around it by having a “regulation” or “administrative rule” which they can/do change in the Ex Post Facto manner with the “Law” making it a crime to violate the aforementioned ‘regulation’ or ‘rule’.
“*sigh* — You missed my point: the Constitution EXPRESSLY prohibits the *States* from enacting Ex Post Facto laws; it has been gutted since Calder v. Bull [1798] wherein the court determined that such prohibition is applicable only to *criminal* law.”
It is the arrogant presumption that the Federal Courts have the final word on the meaning of the constitution that is still the most dangerous and destructive usurpation against our Constitution.
We must abolish that presumption. Until that is done, as Thomas Jefferson Warned in the Kentucky and New Hampshire resolutions there can be no Constitution of free civil or otherwise government.
“They then get around it by having a “regulation” or “administrative rule” which they can/do change in the Ex Post Facto manner with the “Law” making it a crime to violate the aforementioned ‘regulation’ or ‘rule’.”
The requirement that law be made in a non- Ex Post Facto matter is basic to the very printable of the protection of law. In disregarding that basic printable our federal magistrates have deemed themselves arbitrary dictators in the land of the lawless.
Uses your free speech to knock them down. To teach all people that regardless of the edicts of the Federal Politicians own hand picked “court” of the limits of their power they are in fact that which was authorized by all the people in the radicalization of the Constitution in their capacity as States. NOT their own judgment.
The Tyrant Lincoln started this usurpation, alertedly to “save the union”, What Lincoln and the cronies that fought with him(including some of my ancestors) did not realize was the union does not exist merely to exist. Instead the union exist at the discretion of the people (and States) as described and demonstrated in the Declaration of Independents
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.