TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:

Pinkycatcher wrote:
Yah, but it still shuts up the ACLU and those cooky people that say it's a collective right, and is at least a minor stepping stone, many arguments can be made from it though.

Good, then maybe the ACLU will start supporting the 2nd, and I can give 'em money again.

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

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?

Kythas wrote:“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.�

This would seem to me that the Court would uphold open carry. They specifically state an individual has a right to possess and carry weapons.

I understand the need to regulate concealed carry, but I wonder what this will do to laws prohibiting open carry.

HerbM wrote:

Pinkycatcher wrote: Here's where I can see something happening, where automatic weapons could be challenged, Miller happened in 1939, automatic weapons were in common use anywhere around the world, in any militia or in any standing army. In WWII, we used the m1 garand as our main weapon in common use for our army, automatic weapons were not nearly as plentiful so they can be argued they were not in common use. Now we use an M16 (variants) that is an automatic weapon, nearly every police force, and military force issues them out to every one of their members, that would be in common use.

See my logic? I can see this wording being very helpful, and am excited to see what might happen!

Yes, of course your reasoning is good. And the other half is that the government cannot logically ban something then claim the ban is valid because the object banned is not longer in common use (by civilians) DUE to that ban, but this decision implies strongly that this will work. (It doesn't say it outright but it comes close.)

This reading is intellectually dishonest -- but yours is not necessarily going to prevail without careful work.

stroo wrote:I just skimmed through the decision. It is about as bad as a good decision could be. On the good side, all of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and five of the justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment incorporated the right to self defense (this in fact appears to be the big argument between the justices). From there it goes to awful. All of the justice agreed that the right to bear arms can be significantly limited. The majority basically agreed that limits on carry in schools, purchasing requirements, bans of certain types of arms, and licensing requirements are permissible. From reading this, I think the majority would uphold an assault weapons ban. I think the only thing we got out of this is that handguns carried in the home can not be banned.

Overall this is a pretty awful decision. Not much to celebrate.

HerbM wrote:Strongly implying that automatic and short barrel shotgun bans/licensing will remain intact -- although through a form of mental gymnastics that borders on intellectual dishonesty: protects only weapons in common use (ignoring that such arms were be in use if they were not regulate to the point of a near ban.)

Less strongly implying that concealed carry prohibitions will be found acceptable

Stating clearly that allowing rifles will not excuse banning (common) handguns or presumably vice versa.

drw wrote:From the opinion:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.�

It's official: the state of Texas is infringing on our rights by requiring us to be licensed in order to carry.

drw wrote:So if the court has affirmed that we have an individual right to keep and BEAR arms, why would we any longer need permission from the government to carry?

neal6325 wrote:tick tock, tick tock