TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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.

In the sense that the court affirmed DC's right to impose licensing and registration requirements for possession of handguns in the home, look for some Texas cities to try the same. Whether or not it would ultimately pass muster in a legal challenge, somebody is sure to try it.

anygunanywhere wrote:Dude, lighten up.

The quote I posted from the decision did not reference any case law. I was merely refuting Herb's post where he said I was wrong.

Take a chill pill.

Anygun

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.

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

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

03Lightningrocks wrote:Well shoot. I thought the ruling was a good thing. Now I read all this and I'm not so sure anymore.

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.

DParker wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Dude, lighten up.

The quote I posted from the decision did not reference any case law. I was merely refuting Herb's post where he said I was wrong.

Take a chill pill.

Anygun

Did I give the impression that I was upset about something? I just asked a simple question. No need to get all wound up in order to tell someone else who isn't to calm down.

DParker wrote:Are you reading the same decision as the rest of us?

Ms. Hutchison called the ruling "a major victory for the rights of all Americans to protect themselves and their families. The Supreme Court sent a clear message to local, state, and federal governments that this individual right cannot be unreasonably infringed."

57Coastie wrote:You're a wise man, Lightning. Patience is a real virtue so far as this decision is concerned.

There have, for example, been raves here that the recognition of an individual right is marvelous news...

...and pretty much insures that "we" have won.

We must not forget, however, that a unanimous court recognized this, but four of the nine drew some greatly different conclusions about the ultimate impact of that recognition.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Well shoot. I thought the ruling was a good thing. Now I read all this and I'm not so sure anymore. It is fun to watch the story on the different media outlets, each slanting the ruling to meet their own agenda.

anygunanywhere wrote:Hard to tell intent or attitude in just words.

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

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!!!