Excellent!!

[Reagan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

6 minutes ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I love Texas. Greatest state in the Union. 

[tvc184]

Better not count those chickens before they hatch....

 There is a good chance that the lieutenant governor will not let it come up for a vote.  He has killed it before and has again expressed concern for the bill. 

[tvc184]

I am assuming that even though we might have taken civics in school, many or most people aren’t aware of the process or at how many steps a proposed law can be killed.

The media compounds the problem by putting out stories on bills, some of which have 0% chance of becoming law. Usually we will get things like, marijuana bill filled in Texas House and it will generate 1,000 comments like finally! About time!! God intended this law! and so on. The truth is that the committee chairman will not even allow it to be discussed, much less come up for a vote in committee which is the first of at least 5 votes with potentially 7 or more needed. 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

I am assuming that even though we might have taken civics in school, many or most people aren’t aware of the process or at how many steps a proposed law can be killed.

The media compounds the problem by putting out stories on bills, some of which have 0% chance of becoming law. Usually we will get things like, marijuana bill filled in Texas House and it will generate 1,000 comments like finally! About time!! God intended this law! and so on. The truth is that the committee chairman will not even allow it to be discussed, much less come up for a vote in committee which is the first of at least 5 votes with potentially 7 or more needed. 

Glass half full, Debby Downer. 🙂

[baddog]

I love Texas. Greatest state in the union.

[5GallonBucket]

48 minutes ago, baddog said:

I love Texas. Greatest state in the union.

Idaho given it a run

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Glass half full, Debby Downer. Reality. 

Reality. This bill comes up every legislature.
 

I would say that due to the national democratic party pushing to get rid of guns (even though people in forums like this claim that it is false), I believe the sentiment this year might give it a better chance of passing. More of a thumb in the eye of the DNC.....

[LumRaiderFan]

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Reality. This bill comes up every legislature.
 

I would say that due to the national democratic party pushing to get rid of guns (even though people in forums like this claim that it is false), I believe the sentiment this year might give it a better chance of passing. More of a thumb in the eye of the DNC.....

Agree

[Reagan]

It's a shame that we have to pass laws affirming what we already know to be law called the 2nd Amendment!

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

It's a shame that we have to pass laws affirming what we already know to be law called the 2nd Amendment!

You mean we wish it was a law called the 2A.

All rights have restrictions. I think there should be very little if any restrictions are on personal firearms but the US Constitution Article III says otherwise. 

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

You mean we wish it was a law called the 2A.

All rights have restrictions. I think there should be very little if any restrictions are on personal firearms but the US Constitution Article III says otherwise. 

The 10th Amendment takes care of a lot of this.  I know it's been perverted but it's still the Constitution.  

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The full text of the 10 thAmendment explains what the role of the Federal Government is.  Hence the wording: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively!   Again, any "restrictions" not outlined by the Constitution, have been made by politicians and judges.  Example of this perversion of the Constitution:  There are some judges and people, that think there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution.  I say -- show me!   We could spend years on all the perversions of the Constitution!

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, Reagan said:

The 10th Amendment takes care of a lot of this.  I know it's been perverted but it's still the Constitution.  

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The full text of the 10 thAmendment explains what the role of the Federal Government is.  Hence the wording: "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States respectively!   Again, any "restrictions" not outlined by the Constitution, have been made by politicians and judges.  Example of this perversion of the Constitution:  There are some judges and people, that think there is a right to an abortion in the Constitution.  I say -- show me!   We could spend years on all the perversions of the Constitution!

Assuming that you were correct and the 10th amendment takes care of much of this then states that ban firearms is OK. You can’t say that Texas could make something legal under the 10th amendment but New York cannot make an illegal under the 10th amendment. You cannot have it both ways if that is your basis for an argument.

It is like people like the 10th amendment sometimes but do not like it others. The Supreme Court has ruled on at least four occasions that the state has the authority to quarantine and force vaccinations under state policing powers. That is because it is not addressed in the Constitution. All during this Covid to do, I have seen over and over including in this forum that is unconstitutional to force people to wear masks. So which is it? It is disingenuous to say that states can do anything that’s not in the constitution and them turn around and get angry when they do just that. I mean we can disagree about the state decision but how are you going to claim it as unconstitutional?

You mention abortion as if it has to be spelled out. Abortion was ruled as a personal liberty under the 14th amendment and a right to privacy. The Constitution has certain restrictions and general rules. It is not specific to what is legal or illegal in most cases. It leaves much of it up to the federal government and the states such as in Article I in the authority to regulate interstate commerce by the US Congress. It does not specifically state what that interstate commerce is. So it is not valid to make the argument that the government cannot require a permit to cross state lines because that is not in the constitution. No it isn’t it is under the general authorities in Article I.

And since you want to mention the Constitution, Article III says that if there is any question as to what the Constitution means, the Supreme Court gets to make the decision.

The ultimate state rights argument while speaking about the Second Amendment and the 10th amendment, The Texas Constitution roughly mirrors the 2nd Amendment  however it says that the state has the authority to set restrictions. So if the 10th amendment defers to the states, the Texas Constitution allows restrictions on carrying a firearms.

I am all for removing all or most restrictions on firearms. Simply claiming something is unconstitutional if not a valid argument in court unless you can win it on appeal ultimately in front of the US Supreme Court. Let’s say you go to trial in Texas for unlawfully carrying weapons for a handgun. Prosecution present their case and then passes it off to the defense. Your lawyer stands up and says, “Your honor, the 2nd and 10th amendments. The defense rests”. I suspect you might as well go ahead and wait for your jail time because that is not going to win in court. 

 

[Reagan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

11 hours ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

The article does point out some sheer stupidity on the opponents of the proposed law.  It brings up the mass shooting in El Paso in 2019 as an example of why the law does not need to be changed.

The only problem with bringing up that case in reference to this bill is that it was perpetrated with an AK-47, not a handgun. This law only applies to the carrying a handguns. What does an AK-47 have to do with this law? Absolutely nothing. Well, that is not entirely true. Had this proposed law been in place at that time, perhaps some people might have had a handgun on them and they able to protect themselves.