2nd Amendment Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
I realize that this is only my opinion. Please do the same.

The 2nd Amendment = the right to own (keep) and to carry (bear) [see my signature]. I don't find an astric anywhere linking up with subtext about required education or any accomplishment achieved in order to be granted that right.
 
We the People are not granted the RKBA by the Government. The Bill of Rights is to prevent the Government from infringing on our Inalienable right to RKBA.
 
OK how about this? Instead of REQUIRING training to openly carry in Texas, how about if the state makes it an option to VOLUNTARILY take a course of training and for a registration fee - voluntarily paid and in no way mandatory - you get a certificate from the Texas Department of Public Safety that says in effect that you are an at least nominally responsible gun owner? No legal onus to NOT taking the course but everyone who DID take it would have identification to that effect. Your voluntary participating in such training would also put you into the same database that CHL holders and Commissioned Security Guards are in that makes you elgible to serve your fellow citizens as armed backup to the police in time of emergency.

So, to recap. A purely voluntary course of training and voluntary addition to a roster of folks willing to serve as armed backup to the police. In return for taking/passing the course and paying an administrative fee you would have a state issued ID indicating you are a certified responsible carrier of a sidearm. Since that ID would be tied to your TLD# it wold be easy to trace in a pinch and would also constitute forgery if you acquired a bogus certificate.

OK, all you "agin-ers". What is wrong with THAT? Nobody has to jump through any hoops to openly carry. If someone DID take the course and voluntarily register the fact, they would be issued an official document stating that they had done so that could be - again VOLUNTARILY - worn to demonstrate to all and sundry that you have gone the extra mile to demonstrate your good faith and volunteer to serve the community in time of emergency.

What's wrong with that?
 
The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period!
Ted Nugent
Ted Nugent is a good buy but sometimes he is a total idiot. One man's opinion and you know what opinions are like.
 
Audrey said:
...The Bill of Rights is to prevent the Government from infringing on our Inalienable right to RKBA.
And it does, except of course to the extent that the courts will sustain restrictions on the keeping an bearing of arms consistent with settled principles of Constitutional law recognizing permissible grounds to regulate Constitutionally protected rights.

The Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights is my concealed weapons permit, period!
Ted Nugent
Not unless the judge agrees, which he most likely won't.
 
And it does, except of course to the extent that the courts will sustain restrictions on the keeping an bearing of arms consistent with settled principles of Constitutional law recognizing permissible grounds to regulate Constitutionally protected rights

You sound like you work for the NRA.

Any attempt to "regulate Constitutionally" my "protected right" is an obfuscation and limitation of said UNALIENABLE right.

Once again, the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments to the Constitution) is to protect ME from the GOVERNMENT.

The Government exists to SECURE my rights, not regulate, limit or diminish them in any way.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Jefferson et al. were students of history, and understood tyranny, despotism, and the ways in which the ruling class worked their magick. The RKBA is specifically mentioned by them for a reason.

"The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." --Plato

"Republics decline into democracies. Democracies degenrate into despotisms." --Aristotle

"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them" --Adolf Hitler

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these [United States]; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present [Federal Government] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these [United] States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.” --Thomas Jefferson

“Before all else, be armed.” --Niccolo Machiavelli
 
Audrey said:
You sound like you work for the NRA....
Actually, I live in the real world and understand how things work in the real world. You're welcome to live in your alternate universe.

Audrey said:
..Any attempt to "regulate Constitutionally" my "protected right" is an obfuscation and limitation of said UNALIENABLE right....
Yes, that certainly seems to be your opinion. But the courts have some different opinions and don't share yours. And the opinions of the courts trump yours. The opinions of the courts affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. On the other hand, your opinion and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
 
Cyborg - your last post is redundant, as the opportunity to get limited state sanctioned training, and private training in all phases of gun/self defense is currently available. I have taken extra (not state required) courses, as I know many of the posters here have - because I want to be the best that I can be, not because of a government requirement. We are talking here about a potential life threatening situation, where a lethal weapon may be used. Some may well not care at all, beyond a limited familiarization with a particular weapon, but being a private citizen and not military or LEO, that is their 2A right (OC, where allowed, not CCW, where most, but not all states require a permit). As to a "certificate", yes, I do have certificates of successfully completing such courses, but that has nothing to do with law enforcement, or any need for law enforcement to know about. I am not in any way connected to law enforcement, and as far as I know, they aren't interested in me (as long as I cause no trouble!). Just get the law in Texas changed to legal open carry, and let it go at that. In NM OC is not particularly common, although there are some locals that do, but I read of rather common OC by Arizona posters. None make any comments about the need for government training requirements. I see it as a non-problem.
sailortoo
 
Actually, I live in the real world and understand how things work in the real world. You're welcome to live in your alternate universe.

The same sentiments were expressed by the Brownshirts in the 1930s and then later by the government in Vichy.

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Accepting what is unlawful as "realistic" is the ultimate "go along to get along" copout.

Thankfully, the founding fathers of this once-great nation felt much, much differently than you do about what is realistic and what is RIGHT.
 
Audrey said:
...If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem....
How useful -- a cliche from the Hippie days.

Audrey said:
...Accepting what is unlawful as "realistic" is the ultimate "go along to get along" copout....
You miss the point entirely. No one said that we have to accept current or any new restrictions on our rights or that we shouldn't try to change current injustices or fight efforts to impose new ones. But you can't do that effectively unless you understand how things actually are and work in the real world. You can't fix a carburetor unless you understand how it functions.

Twenty years ago, one could not carry a concealed gun in most states. Now one can in most states (at least with a permit that is relatively easy to obtain). This right was won by people who understood and could effective use the political process.

Dick Heller and his lawyers won a Supreme Court decision for the first time directly holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right and rejecting the "collective right" view that had become popular and had been driving anti-gun legislation and court decisions. This can become a powerful tool in our efforts to preserve the RKBA against a generally increasingly antagonistic society. Heller and his lawyers accomplished this by understanding the law and how it works and making appropriate use of it.

If we are to win (as I hope we do and think we should) in the courts, it will be because we have the help of wise and skillful lawyers who understand the law and legal processes. If we are to win in the political arena, it will be because we have the help of people who understand the world of politics and operate effectively in that world. But if we deny the reality of the courts and politics, we will not be effective and will be buried by those interests who can more adroitly "work the system."

At the end of the day, the RKBA will be protected by those who understand and can manage and affect reality, and not by a lot of "dorm room bull session" rhetoric that those who make things actually happen in the real world ignore.
 
sailortoo, I am writing 1) in the context of open carry in Texas and 2) to look at ways to get the bill passed. I am going to suggest to my State Rep and Senator that when the Police Organizations and the Anti-Gun people hollar about open carry, the mechanism I outlined be offered as a compromise to mitigate safety concerns.

NM has open carry now. Good for you. NM also considers publicly insulting someone to be an assault
30-3-1. Assault.
Assault consists of <snippage>
C. the use of insulting language toward another impugning his honor, delicacy or reputation.
whereas in Texas
Sec. 9.31.(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
In practical use, as we were instructed when I sat on a jury hearing an assault cast in 07, an assault requires both unwanted touch and pain. The law here reflects a "Sticks and stones" mentality. In NM if I make disparaging public statements about your parentage or intellect or moral character I have committed an assault. In Texas the worst I can get for talking trash in public is Disorderly Conduct. And no matter what I say nobody has the right to use force on me as a result. Which is the more mature, rational society?
 
Last edited:
This is getting both tiresome, and further off topic (assault in NM is worse than in Tx? Wow!). So you don't like NM - not the topic. You seem to want more government control in Texas of an Unalienable Right - I don't. End of story. I just wish for Texas to return that same Unalienable Right to it's citizens, as we in NM, and many other states, have, without any further government requirements or regulations (just like it says in the U.S. Constitution).
sailortoo
 
I think the better solution is to require a basic gun safety class in high school. Mandating anything regarding a right is not ok. Like it was said earlier, not being able to yell fire in a movie theater is not a restriction of the 1st amendment. Yelling fire is a crime commited with speech, like shooting someone is a crime commited with "arms". Requiring a class to carry a gun is like requiring a class to get a license to speak. That is the correct comparison. Now that does sound like an infringement, huh?
 
........However, you do not have to pass a test to be allowed free speach. I think the real compairison is that for a guarenteed constitutional right, there can be no pre-enforcement. Otherwise they would duct tape your mouth shut uppon entering the theater. But we dont do that. :D
 
Ohio Gun Guy said:
...you do not have to pass a test to be allowed free speach...
Actually, sometimes you do. For example, if you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true.
 
I rest my case against the Brownshirt fiddlesticks. Vichy would be proud comrade!
 
fiddletown said:
... And it does, except of course to the extent that the courts will sustain restrictions on the keeping an bearing of arms consistent with settled principles of Constitutional law recognizing permissible grounds to regulate Constitutionally protected rights.

Just what are those permissible grounds, and where do you find them in the Constitution, my friend?

Woody
 
Audrey,

The examples I have given are in fact current law. But be that as it may, it really doesn't have much to do with the original topic of this thread, and it might not be a bad idea to go back to the issue.

The question is basically what can be done to better encourage the Legislature of the Texas to adopt legislation permitting the open carry of firearms. it seems to me that there are several ways of looking at this.

[1] You can take the position that the Second Amendment guarantees you the right to carry your gun openly, if you wish, and that the State has no power to interfere with your doing so. However, in this universe, in Texas, carrying your gun openly will get you arrested. And unless you can sell your Constitutional argument to the judge, it will get you convicted, with all the unpleasant baggage that no doubt goes with such a conviction.

[2] You could hold your ground with the Legislature and insist that they adopt unrestricted Legislation, in whatever form may be appropriate given the organization of the Texas statutes. I don't know whether that's politically feasible. If it is, that would be great and a clear win. If it's not, well then our side loses.

[3] You could try to find a way to overcome whatever reluctance there may be to permitting open carry and propose accommodations to answer whatever concerns have generated that reluctance, as long as you could live with those accommodations. That just might get you lawful open carry.

ConstitutionCowboy said:
Just what are those permissible grounds, and where do you find them in the Constitution...
Woody, we've been through this before. The courts have done this. They do it now. They will continue to do it and affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. They will do so without regard to your opinions.
 
sailortoo, I am not advocating any sort of mandatory training. What I am advocating is a way for cops to be able - on sight - to distinguish at least nominally responsible gunowners from those who just want to carry. You take extra training? Good for you. My comment was about the oddities of your state's laws. I do not want any more government control. I believe I have stated that more than once. But you seem unable to pull your head out of your own millieu (or elsewhere for that matter - BTW, I know a Dr. who performs chrystallectomies cheap) to look at things from a larger perspective. Instead of decrying any requirement, why not advocate the state REWARD people for doing the responsible thing? So long as neither the training, the registration of having taken the training nor wearing the certificate is mandatory, how could that be an infringement?

I am saying REWARD people for their willingness to increase public safety. Offer a carrot instead of only a stick. I know a website that sells "ID" cards that say something to the effect of "Card Carrying Good-Guy". Wearing the voluntarilyobtained - I say again VOLUNTARILY OBTAINED - certification on your belt along with your sidearm would in effect be proclaiming that you are, indeed, a "Card Carrying Good-Guy". And you would have an official state issued document attesting to that. You don't want to advertise the fact that you have taken extra training? Fine and dandy! Is it OK if I wish to do so? Or must I conform to your version of the way things ought to be? Because if you want me to conform to your ideas of how things ought to be then you are NO BETTER THAN THE LIBS!!!

I never said you have to do things my way. But if you are not ready to offer me the same respect then we have a problem. We are free to disagree about how we go about availing ourselves of the RKBA. In the words of fiddletown I am just suggesting
accommodations to answer whatever concerns have generated that reluctance, [since I can] live with those accommodations
Politics is the art of the possible.
Otto Von Bismarck, remark, Aug. 11, 1867

I know there is going to be some strong opposition to the open carry bill. It is in no wise certain that we actually will get open carry in Texas. But the first two options fiddletown described are virtually certain NOT to get us legal open carry. I am offering a suggestion for a possible "accomodation". Let's see, sit on your high horse or stand your ground and get nothing, or offer an accomodation that puts sidearms openly on the hip of any Texan who wants to carry. Two approaches that virtually guarantee defeat or one strategy that at least has a chance. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. I think I know which one the Iron Duke would counsel me to support.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burying your head in the sand only makes your a** a better target. - B Mullins
 
I see good reasons for having some of the education as listed, but it could/would quickly be expanded and modified to essentially outlaw open carry. So I guess what I'm saying is that it would be very bad in the long-run.
 
fiddletown said:
Woody, we've been through this before. The courts have done this. They do it now. They will continue to do it and affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. They will do so without regard to your opinions.

I'm not looking for any concurrence with my opinions, I'm looking for the authorization in the Constitution for the Court to wield this power. And, I don't care what your opinion is regarding this supposed power right now. I want to know where it is spelled out in the Constitution.

You and I both see the Court exercising this power, but I can't find it in the Constitution, and you seem to think what the Court does in these cases is constitutional, therefore, you must know where it is in the Constitution. Show me.

There can be no cure until you isolate the cause.

Woody
 
The Second Amendment of our Constitution requires no INTERPRETIATION

One can interpret even the BIBLE into ANYTHING one wishes to suit ones' specific point-of-view. Beyond merely scary, anything can be twisted and convoluted to "mean" whatever one desires. The Second Amendment of our precious Constitution was never meant for subjigation to cunning "interpretation." Give Americans a break and allow our God-Given FREEDOMs. Entrapping AMERICA into slavery through our own liberal ideology seems MOST unfair. Some Americans WILL understandably resent this new, if ideologolic concept of ROBOTIC superiority. I fear humans are an antiquated concept for the future. Nothing ever changes for the betterment of humankind. We are merely disposable flesh in a world advancing far too fast for our own good and well-being, where humans are destined for extinction and replacement. cliffy
 
The right to own a gun is not a "God Given Right" or a "natural right" since guns were not made by God and do not exist in the natural state. It is a derivative right (Blackstone used the terminology "auxillary right") to the "God Given" or natural right of self defense.

There, I said it. LOL
 
legaleagle 45 said:
The right to own a gun is not a "God Given Right" or a "natural right" since guns were not made by God and do not exist in the natural state. It is a derivative right (Blackstone used the terminology "auxillary right") to the "God Given" or natural right of self defense.

There, I said it. LOL

Doesn't matter. What matters is that our right to keep and bear arms - which includes guns - is protected by the Second Amendment from infringement by government.

Woody
 
Doesn't matter.

Hi woody. It does indeed matter.. If the right is not "God Given" and/or a "natural right" then by consequence, it must be created by man. Now obviously, if something is made by man, the question then arises, when was it made and how was it made? It is only when you can answer those question can you begin to discover what exactly the right to keep and bear arms is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top