TexasCHLforum.com

DParker wrote:

drw wrote:What on earth is going on? Since when is any kind of infringement reasonable?

For quite a long time now. Have you tried shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater lately?

Pinkycatcher wrote:

DParker wrote:

drw wrote:What on earth is going on? Since when is any kind of infringement reasonable?

For quite a long time now. Have you tried shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater lately?

The day before I yelled "BOMB" at an airport

drw wrote:
My concern is over who exactly is defining what is "reasonable" infringement.

DParker wrote:TX state law supercedes local law, and the way the state law currently stands I think it would be pretty difficult for a local government to construct a restrictive ordinance that was not at odds with it.

srothstein wrote:My conclusion is that this is this first step in a long journey. It is not the baby step it could have been, nor is it the giant step we wanted it to be.

[Eugene Volokh, June 26, 2008 at 10:25am] Trackbacks
The Second Amendment and State and Local Laws:

The Heller decision of course only involved the Second Amendment's effects on federal laws (including laws of federal enclaves, such as D.C.). Whether the Constitution limits state and local gun bans -- which is to say whether the Second Amendment is "incorporated" against states and their subdivisions by the Fourteenth Amendment -- will have to be decided in a future case. The majority doesn't clearly signal its view on the question, but it does suggest that simply citing some late 1800s cases which rejected incorporation (at a time when incorporation was generally being rejected as to nearly all of the Bill of Rights) will not suffice. Here's footnote 23, on page 48 of the majority oinion:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Cruikshank's judgment that the First Amendment wasn't incorporated was of course reversed by "later cases" starting in the 1920s.

According to Tom Goldstein, “The opinion leaves open the question whether the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, but strongly suggests it is. So today’s ruling likely applies equally to State regulation.�

03Lightningrocks wrote:LOL...Feinstein and a few of the other anti gun nuts have made a statement to the affect that violence will now prevail across the country...LOL. She is one cray bat!

Here it is...ya'll are gonna love this twisted logic.
...

I think this is a monumental decision. I am profoundly disappointed in Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both of whom assured us about their respect for precedent.

Gun-grabbing Feinstein wrote:I speak as a former Mayor. I speak as somebody who has gone to homicide crime scenes. I speak as somebody who has lost a youngster that I mentored who killed himself by playing Russian roulette with a weapon he found. I speak as somebody who authorized assault weapons legislation, who believes that it was working when it was allowed to expire. I speak as somebody who has watched this nation with its huge homicide rate, when countries that have sane restrictions on weapons do not have that homicide rate.
I speak as somebody who has a concealed weapons permit even when the vast majority of my constituents either
1) want one but can't get one
2) wish no one could have one
thereby making me the enemy of the entire state's populace.
I speak as somebody who can't believe these idiots keep re-electing me.
I speak as somebody who rejects the notion, put by Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn to the Gungan Jar-Jar Binks, that "the ability to speak does not make one intelligent."

The Court properly disclaims any interest in evaluating
the wisdom of the specific policy choice challenged in this
case, but it fails to pay heed to a far more important policy
choice—the choice made by the Framers themselves. The
Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the
Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to
elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons,
and to authorize this Court to use the common-law
process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the
contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling
evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s
opinion, I could not possibly conclude that the Framers
made such a choice.

kd5zex wrote:I just finished reading Justice Stevens' dissent, it is truly frightening that 3 other justices agree with the statement below...

...The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons...