TexasCHLforum.com

aardwolf wrote:

DParker wrote:Either way it does not run afoul of state law in any manner.

If San Antonio can ban locking folders why can't Dallas ban loaded handguns? Either there's State preemption or there isn't.

Because of the differing nature of the two sets of statutes. TX state law specifically provides that residents have the legal right to own and carry (conditionally) a loaded handgun. An attempt by Dallas to ban loaded handguns would be a direct violation of that higher law. On the other hand, the San Antonio lockblade knife ban is simply an extension to an existing state ban, not a contravention of it. There is no state law providing for the right to own a lockbladed knife of any size. Simply an explicite restriction on those over 5 1/2" in length.

Are you saying Dallas could still ban rifles under the same conditions San Antonio bans locking folders?

aardwolf wrote:Are you saying Dallas could still ban rifles under the same conditions San Antonio bans locking folders?

I'm not saying that at all. For starters, there's Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to contend with:

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

However, regarding my previous response, the following...

There is no state law providing for the right to own a lockbladed knife of any size.

...really should have read...

There is no state law providing for the right to carry a lockbladed knife of any size.

There is also no state law providing for the right to carry a shotgun or rifle of any caliber. The state constitution says "arms" and history shows that knives have been arms thousands of years before firearms were invented.

aardwolf wrote:There is also no state law providing for the right to carry a shotgun or rifle of any caliber.

You seem to be jumping all over the place here. First you talk about some vague ban on rifles, and now you talk specifically about carrying long guns. Please decide what specific hypothetical you're talking about and we can proceed from there.

The state constitution says arms and knives have been arms thousands of years longer than firearms.

Huh?

Here is a short statement from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on the Heller decision. For those who may not be aware, Greg Abbott is the best friend Texas gun owners have ever had as Attorney General. He also led the charge for, and was lead signatory on, the amicus brief filed by state attorneys general in support of "our" side in Heller.

Chas.

Greg Abbott, AG wrote:"Today's decision marks a victory for gun owners in Texas and across the nation. The United States Supreme Court confirmed what Texans have known for years--the Constitution clearly protects individuals' right to keep and bear arms. This decision should eliminate any legal threat to Texas' concealed carry law and our Castle doctrine."

DParker wrote:Please decide what specific hypothetical you're talking about and we can proceed from there.

I'm sorry if my post at the top of this page wasn't clear enough.

aardwolf wrote:Are you saying Dallas could still ban rifles under the same conditions San Antonio bans locking folders?

You quoted the San Antonio ordinance so I thought you knew the conditions I meant. My bad.

aardwolf wrote:

DParker wrote:Please decide what specific hypothetical you're talking about and we can proceed from there.

I'm sorry if my post at the top of this page wasn't clear enough.

The problem is that you keep moving the goal posts. You've presented no fewer than three fundamentaly different "what if"s.

aardwolf wrote:

Are you saying Dallas could still ban rifles under the same conditions San Antonio bans locking folders?

You quoted the San Antonio ordinance so I thought you knew the conditions I meant. My bad.

My answer to you should have made it quite clear that I most certainly did know the conditions you meant, and that you were making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is a short statement from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on the Heller decision. For those who may not be aware, Greg Abbott is the best friend Texas gun owners have ever had as Attorney General. He also led the charge for, and was lead signatory on, the amicus brief filed by state attorneys general in support of "our" side in Heller.

Chas.

Greg Abbott, AG wrote:"Today's decision marks a victory for gun owners in Texas and across the nation. The United States Supreme Court confirmed what Texans have known for years--the Constitution clearly protects individuals' right to keep and bear arms. This decision should eliminate any legal threat to Texas' concealed carry law and our Castle doctrine."

That is good to hear. Thanks for sharing Charles.

DParker wrote:My answer to you should have made it quite clear that I most certainly did know the conditions you meant, and that you were making an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Maybe it should but it wasn't clear at all. As I have said before, the Texas constitution says "arms" not firearms. Humans have used knives as weapons for thousands of years before firearms were invented, so knives are clearly arms. Please explain how the current San Antonio prohibition against one type of arm (locking folder) is fundamentally different than a hypothetical Dallas prohibition against another type of arm (long guns) other than type of "arms" prohibited (and the fact one is hypothetical. )

aardwolf wrote:[Maybe it should but it wasn't clear at all. As I have said before, the Texas constitution says "arms" not firearms. Humans have used knives as weapons for thousands of years before firearms were invented, so knives are clearly arms. Please explain how the current San Antonio prohibition against one type of arm (locking folder) is fundamentally different than a hypothetical Dallas prohibition against another type of arm (long guns) other than type of "arms" prohibited (and the fact one is hypothetical. )

Let me repeat the part of the Texas Constitution that you seem to have missed:

but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

This is why I said that you need to decide which of the three quite different things you've presented so far...

1. Banning loaded handguns.
2. Banning rifles.
3. Banning the carrying of long guns.

...you're actually asking about as an analogy. Texas law as it currently exists makes each a fundamentally different issue. I've already explained why #1 was not analogous to the San Antonio statute. I've also explained that #2 was vague, but generally not permitted by the state Constitution. I've now demonstrated why #3 is a case that is quite different from the previous two, but roughly analogous to the lockbladed knife restrictions.

Standing on the steps of the John A. Wilson Building, the mayor added that he believes he speaks for District residents in saying, "We are disappointed in the ruling. We wish it had gone the other way, but we respect the court's" decision.

I wish i knew exactly how many "District residents" he actually speaks for

Posted in one of the many Heller threads...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj2L8OhR4ak

Mayor Fenty addressing the SCOTUS ruling today. This is clip running for 5:12. Note a couple of statements he makes...

+ most semi-automatic handguns generally remain illegal (2:45)
+ the police will make clear what handguns specifically may be registered (4:38)

What a piece of work...

gmckinl wrote:+ the police will make clear what handguns specifically may be registered (4:38)

I predict they won't allow anything past 19th Century technology.

I wouldn't be complete surprised if they try to only allow registration for single shot flintlock pistols.

dihappy wrote:

Standing on the steps of the John A. Wilson Building, the mayor added that he believes he speaks for District residents in saying, "We are disappointed in the ruling. We wish it had gone the other way, but we respect the court's" decision.

I wish i knew exactly how many "District residents" he actually speaks for

Who is this "we" business, and respect is not in their "real" vocabulary...

They will respect the courts decision till they can worm around it by legislating those folks into a corner again...

It was said that Heller WILL receive his "licence" to carry IN his home from D.C. officials...When and how that will happen is anyone's guess...It will be a very public display with all sorts of view and opinions by the usual yammer-heads...(just my opinion)...

And when all the hype dies down...What about the rest of those people who live in that district try to get their own permits and licences...I'm sure that we will not see a lot of those issued...But I bet a prerequisite will be that the applicant must first register ALL of their intended firearms they wish to keep IN their homes, so that when they are turned down or give up jumping through the post hype publicity of all of this, the local government will know what ya got there...

I mean I hate to sound like this, but I am only presenting this this way, because I tend to think like some of them do...I mean this would be the way I would make the play if I was a liberal/socialist...

Don't ask me what I think of Justice Breyers dissenting opinion...

I may choose to exercise my First Amendment right, and say something rather harsh...

But...

I am glad I was proven wrong by the court today...