TexasCHLforum.com

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.

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.

DParker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Here is the official Brady Campaign response:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... elease=992

What?! The Brady Campaign issuing a statement that is not consistent with the facts?!! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

News Release

Statement Of Brady President Paul Helmke
On Supreme Court Second Amendment Ruling
For Immediate Release:
06-26-2008

Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319 Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Washington, D.C. - Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“Our fight to enact sensible gun laws will be undiminished by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Heller case. While we disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which strips the citizens of the District of Columbia of a law they strongly support, the decision clearly suggests that other gun laws are entirely consistent with the Constitution.

“For years, the gun lobby has used fear of government gun confiscation to thwart efforts to pass sensible gun laws, arguing that even modest gun laws will lead down the path to a complete ban on gun ownership. Now that the Court has struck down the District’s ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this ‘slippery slope’ argument is gone.

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

“The Heller decision, however, will most likely embolden criminal defendants, and ideological extremists, to file new legal attacks on existing gun laws. With the help of the Brady Center’s legal team, those attacks can, and must, be successfully resisted in the interest of public safety.

“After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day. Our weak or non-existent gun laws contribute to the thousands of senseless gun deaths and injuries in this country that occur each year. We must continue to fight for sensible gun laws to help protect our families and our communities.�

# # #

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is a national non-profit organization working to reduce the tragic toll of gun violence in America, through education, research, and legal advocacy. The programs of the Brady Center complement the legislative and grassroots mobilization of its sister organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters.

DParker wrote:

57Coastie wrote:Does anyone read this decision to change anything in Texas?

I certainly don't. TX law already seems to be predicated on an individual RKBA.

DParker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

DParker wrote:Well. I guess that's what I get for giving Ginsburg the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless....

Hooray for our side.

You actually thought that Ginsburg would come down on the side of the individual right?

I thought it was at least a good possibility, based on her questions during oral arguments. Did you listen to them? She gave every indication that she was leaning toward Heller's side in the case, albeit quite narrowly. But, like I said before...my prognostication was based on my status as a quasi-gambling man

She believes that foreign law regarding the RKBA should be dependent upon what other nations say about it.

Well, for the record...I also believe that foreign law regarding the RKBA should be dependant on what other nations say about it. Of course, I don't feel that way about U.S. law.

DParker wrote:Well. I guess that's what I get for giving Ginsburg the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless....

Hooray for our side.

(Of late, I must acknowledge, my Chief has expressed disagreement on the relevance of foreign law, particularly on questions implicating the allocation of regulatory and decisionmaking authority between state and federal governments in the United States. I will later refer to 21st-century dissenting opinions he joined criticizing comparative sideglances by the Court's majority.)

Returning to my own perspective, while U. S. jurisprudence has evolved over the course of two centuries of constitutional adjudication, we are not so wise that we have nothing to learn from other democratic legal systems newer to judicial review for constitutionality. The point was well made by Second Circuit Judge, former Dean of Yale Law School, Guido Calabresi: "Wise parents," Judge Calabresi said in a 1995 concurring opinion, "do not hesitate to learn from their children."