TexasCHLforum.com

Bladed wrote:

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

Yes.

Here are a few excerpts from state constitutions:

Arkansas Constitution, Article 19, Section 1 of the 1874 Constitution:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6, Section 8:
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."

Pennsylvania a Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4, Section 2:
"Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee's Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' Bill of Rights, Section 4:
"RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Get back on topic and drop the religious discussion

Keith B wrote:Get back on topic and drop the religious discussion

Do you honestly not get the Constitutional/historical context of our comments? If your point is that a discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment is not germane the issue of open carry of long guns at restaurants, that point is well-taken, but nobody here is having a religious discussion.

jmra wrote:

SewTexas wrote:the problem is the OC crowd doesn't want to compromise. interestingly, they are taking tactics of many liberal groups.

This is what people removed from the situation are not understanding. It is also difficult for people in states where handgun OC is legal to understand the issues caused by people trying to promote handgun OC by OCing long guns especially when uninvited in privately owned establishments. Long gun OC and handgun OC are two very different animals.

BAM!

There it is!

It may be the same in some states, but in Texas it's a whole different ball game.

And for the sheeple, they don't get it at all, the meaning of these OC folks carrying around a long gun in a restaurant trying to convince the people that what they really want is open carry of handguns. I mean, how confusing is that? Especially to people (sheeple) that are not in the know.

Your post was specifically pointing to the rules where a belief in God is required. Nothing to do with the issue of these restaurants requesting no open carry.

Now, get back on topic.

Keith B
Moderator

You know, I've been a great student of our country through the years by watching many many TV and moving picture westerns. The only time I recall seeing people carry their long guns into saloons and restaurants was when they were planning in stirring up some trouble.

Now that should end this debate of carrying in restaurants and other places of bidness.

Bladed wrote:

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

Yes.

IIRC but you'll see the the Bill of Rights generally inhibited only the federal government in the early days [abbreviated profanity deleted] the Republic. It was only later extended to the states.

Remember, initially there was no Bill of Rights, and they permitted slavery in the Constitution. The document was all about federalism and limited the federales with states remaining pre-eminent.

That got curb stomped after a small fracas in the 60s...

NavyVet1959 wrote:
Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

Actually, the 1st Amendment is specifically for the federal government. At the time of the founding of our country there were multiple states that had state sanctioned religions, and certain religions were prohibited. At the time of the revolution Catholicism was forbidden in Maryland and it was legal to kill Caatholic priests.

Anygunanywhere

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

It was the 14th Amendment that expanded the power of the federals government to allow for federal rules to be propagated down to the state level. Personally, I think that it gave the federal government too much power and combined with the way that the Southern states were forced to ratify it, I don't particularly agree with it. I also don't like the fact that in a single amendment, they lump so many concepts together.

Personally, I believe that the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct since the Constitution would not have passed if those 10 Amendments had not been there.

I don't think many people would disagree. The 14th was overall a mistake in result. It was illegally passed, but ultimately has led to many unintended consequences.

Unfortunately, until it is repealed, it's moot.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Remember, initially there was no Bill of Rights, and they permitted slavery in the Constitution.

Really? Would you care to quote the section where it does that?

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Remember, initially there was no Bill of Rights, and they permitted slavery in the Constitution.

Really? Would you care to quote the section where it does that?

They counted slaves for taxation and representation purposes.

Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes[edit]Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three

Do you know why that section was put into the constitution?

Not to reinforce slavery but rather to limit the influence if it. The slave owning states wanted all the slaves to be counted.....why....more people=more representation. The 3/5 compromise was to limit the influence of those states that had huge slave populations. It did not strengthen slavery or legitimize it, it weakened it.

That was the purpose of the 3/5 compromise.

mamabearCali wrote:Do you know why that section was put into the constitution?

Not to reinforce slavery but rather to limit the influence if it. The slave owning states wanted all the slaves to be counted.....why....more people=more representation. The 3/5 compromise was to limit the influence of those states that had huge slave populations. It did not strengthen slavery or legitimize it, it weakened it.

That was the purpose of the 3/5 compromise.

Right. It still permitted slavery which directly violates the 5th Amendment.

If the framers had tried to outlaw slavery at the time the United States would never have come to being. Period, end of story. It was discussed at the time and it was a deal breaker. So if we like our constitution with the lovely protection for protection of religion, speech, and the 2nd amendment we have to take the bad with the good. Oherwise I suggest we all brush up on a rousing chorus of "God save the queen" because without the union we would have surely been recolonized by Britain.

You can do your own research on that question, but not even my most Marxist professors said anything but that when I got my degree in history.

Yes, slavery is against the many of the ideals of the constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It also existed in every society that has every been and still exist in some places of the world today. In the western world it was only abolished by the highest ideals of Christian ideas and reformation thought coming together in a brialliant realization that all men are created equal and that owning a man is an unimaginable evil. 600 k Americans died to settle that question. Let's not fight what has already been won.

Now we face a new battle. Do we remain free citizens or do we for comfort sake all become slaves of the state.


Edited to add: as a side note that it is because of North Carolina (a slave holding state) that we have a bill of rights at all. They would not sign on without it. Just food for thought.

mojo84 wrote:You know, I've been a great student of our country through the years by watching many many TV and moving picture westerns. The only time I recall seeing people carry their long guns into saloons and restaurants was when they were planning in stirring up some trouble.

Now that should end this debate of carrying in restaurants and other places of bidness.