Fed Court Ruling: Texas law prohibiting 18-20 LTC violoates 2A

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 5273
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Fed Court Ruling: Texas law prohibiting 18-20 LTC violoates 2A

#31

Post by srothstein »

Vol Texan wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:54 amI might get some flack on here for this, but I WANT Texas to appeal this. (Full disclosure, I hope Texas loses, but I still want Texas to appeal).

Here's my reasoning: According to the AG's website, the Texas Attorney General is responsible for"<snip> Defending the State of Texas and its duly enacted laws by providing legal representation to the State...<snip>. I don't want a situation where he picks and/or chooses which Texas laws he defends. Rather, I want him to defend all of them.

This AG might like or dislike a certain law with the same preferences as I do, but that's not important. The next one may not, and I still want that next AG to defend my preferred with the same vigor, irrespective of whether he/she likes that particular law or not. Liking a law isn't in the job description. Defending it is.

So yes, AG Paxton should defend our law. I hope he loses, but I hope he defends it.
I agree 100%
As for the DPS filing the appeal? I don't know how the legal mechanisms work in the courts, but I'd just as soon they keep their political opinions out of it. Perhaps it's necessary for them to file the appeal for the AG to do his job (I truly have no idea, just thinking out loud here). If that's the case, then OK, but if AG Paxton can defend the law irrespective of what they do, then I would prefer they keep their opinions to themselves. I see DPS' job as enforcement of the laws, not using their biases to drive whether laws should or should not be in place.
As I understand the process, when an agency is sued, the AG assigns a team of lawyers to handle the case. The agency has their own lawyers that work with the team to make sure the legal team understands the specifics of how the agency works in that area. The agency and the AG team make the decisions together on appealing or settling or dropping the case. When McCraw announced he was appealing, he was saying that his legal team working with the AG team had filed the notice to appeal. While I truly thought Paxton would appeal since he has the duty to defend the law that you pointed out, I would bet DPS was the agency that wanted the appeal because McCraw doesn't like the ruling and wants the law to stay on the books. I think (but am not sure) that all of the litigants are still tied to the case unless the court specifically releases them.

And while I don't like or trust McCraw, it is possible he took the lead on the appeal just to provide political cover for Abbott and Paxton.
Steve Rothstein
User avatar

Vol Texan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2340
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:18 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: Fed Court Ruling: Texas law prohibiting 18-20 LTC violoates 2A

#32

Post by Vol Texan »

srothstein wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 11:05 pm
Vol Texan wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:54 amI might get some flack on here for this, but I WANT Texas to appeal this. (Full disclosure, I hope Texas loses, but I still want Texas to appeal).

Here's my reasoning: According to the AG's website, the Texas Attorney General is responsible for"<snip> Defending the State of Texas and its duly enacted laws by providing legal representation to the State...<snip>. I don't want a situation where he picks and/or chooses which Texas laws he defends. Rather, I want him to defend all of them.

This AG might like or dislike a certain law with the same preferences as I do, but that's not important. The next one may not, and I still want that next AG to defend my preferred with the same vigor, irrespective of whether he/she likes that particular law or not. Liking a law isn't in the job description. Defending it is.

So yes, AG Paxton should defend our law. I hope he loses, but I hope he defends it.
I agree 100%
As for the DPS filing the appeal? I don't know how the legal mechanisms work in the courts, but I'd just as soon they keep their political opinions out of it. Perhaps it's necessary for them to file the appeal for the AG to do his job (I truly have no idea, just thinking out loud here). If that's the case, then OK, but if AG Paxton can defend the law irrespective of what they do, then I would prefer they keep their opinions to themselves. I see DPS' job as enforcement of the laws, not using their biases to drive whether laws should or should not be in place.
As I understand the process, when an agency is sued, the AG assigns a team of lawyers to handle the case. The agency has their own lawyers that work with the team to make sure the legal team understands the specifics of how the agency works in that area. The agency and the AG team make the decisions together on appealing or settling or dropping the case. When McCraw announced he was appealing, he was saying that his legal team working with the AG team had filed the notice to appeal. While I truly thought Paxton would appeal since he has the duty to defend the law that you pointed out, I would bet DPS was the agency that wanted the appeal because McCraw doesn't like the ruling and wants the law to stay on the books. I think (but am not sure) that all of the litigants are still tied to the case unless the court specifically releases them.

And while I don't like or trust McCraw, it is possible he took the lead on the appeal just to provide political cover for Abbott and Paxton.
If that’s the case, then I understand.

Thanks for the affirmation, sir.

Still hope they lose!

:txflag:
Your best option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.

www.HoustonLTC.com Texas LTC Instructor | www.Texas3006.com Moderator | Tennessee Squire | Armored Cavalry
User avatar

jmorris
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:41 pm
Location: La Vernia
Contact:

Re: Fed Court Ruling: Texas law prohibiting 18-20 LTC violoates 2A

#33

Post by jmorris »

ScottDLS wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:59 pm
puma guy wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 9:53 pm
philip964 wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 6:11 pm https://www.insider.com/illegal-anyone- ... ork-2022-8

Illegal for under 21 to buy Redi whip whipped cream in New York.

Irony?
Guess they'll have to switch to heroin, so they can get free syringes.
Nitrous oxide…like at the dentist… is the propellant in the canned whipped cream.
The comment (and references I've seen) is misleading. Has nothing to do with cans of Rediwhip. There are dispensers that you load handmade whipped cream into and then insert a nitrous oxide cartridge into to pressurize it. These cartridges look like air gun CO2 cartridges and those are what's been restricted.
Jay E Morris,
Guardian Firearm Training, NRA Pistol, LTC < retired from all
NRA Lifetime, TSRA Lifetime
NRA Recruiter (link)

BigGuy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1038
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 11:36 am
Contact:

Re: Fed Court Ruling: Texas law prohibiting 18-20 LTC violoates 2A

#34

Post by BigGuy »

jmorris wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:34 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:59 pm
puma guy wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 9:53 pm
philip964 wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 6:11 pm https://www.insider.com/illegal-anyone- ... ork-2022-8

Illegal for under 21 to buy Redi whip whipped cream in New York.

Irony?
Guess they'll have to switch to heroin, so they can get free syringes.
Nitrous oxide…like at the dentist… is the propellant in the canned whipped cream.
The comment (and references I've seen) is misleading. Has nothing to do with cans of Rediwhip. There are dispensers that you load handmade whipped cream into and then insert a nitrous oxide cartridge into to pressurize it. These cartridges look like air gun CO2 cartridges and those are what's been restricted.
OK, that makes sense. I was trying to picture somebody “sniffing” Rediwhip.
User avatar

puma guy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 7609
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:23 pm
Location: Near San Jacinto

Re: Fed Court Ruling: Texas law prohibiting 18-20 LTC violoates 2A

#35

Post by puma guy »

BigGuy wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:04 pm
jmorris wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:34 pm
ScottDLS wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 6:59 pm
puma guy wrote: Fri Sep 02, 2022 9:53 pm
philip964 wrote: Sat Aug 27, 2022 6:11 pm https://www.insider.com/illegal-anyone- ... ork-2022-8

Illegal for under 21 to buy Redi whip whipped cream in New York.

Irony?
Guess they'll have to switch to heroin, so they can get free syringes.
Nitrous oxide…like at the dentist… is the propellant in the canned whipped cream.
The comment (and references I've seen) is misleading. Has nothing to do with cans of Rediwhip. There are dispensers that you load handmade whipped cream into and then insert a nitrous oxide cartridge into to pressurize it. These cartridges look like air gun CO2 cartridges and those are what's been restricted.
OK, that makes sense. I was trying to picture somebody “sniffing” Rediwhip.
:lol: Yeah, it's the gas and they call it "huffing". Kids extract it from Reddi Whip and other whipped topping cans. BTW NOS abuse has been around since the 19th century.
KAHR PM40/Hoffner IWB and S&W Mod 60/ Galco IWB
NRA Endowment Member, TSRA Life Member,100 Club Life Member,TFC Member
My Faith, My Gun and My Constitution: I cling to all three!
User avatar

Vol Texan
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2340
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 2:18 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: Fed Court Ruling: Texas law prohibiting 18-20 LTC violoates 2A

#36

Post by Vol Texan »

So is it legal now, or on hold during the appeals process? Can an 18-year-old carry yet?
Your best option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.

www.HoustonLTC.com Texas LTC Instructor | www.Texas3006.com Moderator | Tennessee Squire | Armored Cavalry
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”