Big Texas; Big Gun Rights (mission, Article, Zen)

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Easier to prove if they're dead.

heh heh.... yeah, but I don't think flipping the bird is going to make the cut for some reason...

[GeneCosta]

Originally Posted by Comprehend

what amendment are you referring to?

Also, if states are to apply a constitutional amendment, they must first interpret/understand what it means... I don't get what you mean.

The 2nd.

States shouldn't interpret constitutional amendments different from each other; it is the job of the Supreme Court. If the United States congress passes a constitution amendment making gay marriage legal, Texas adopts that amendment, neither the Texas government nor its court can decide to call homosexual marriage "unions".

The 9th amendment states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 10th states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Only laws outside of the constitution's jurisdiction can be determined on an individual state-basis (driving age, recycling). If the Supreme Court says the 2nd amendment does not allow you to bring weapons to a public schools, that applies to all states having recognized the 2nd amendment, not just the ones that agree with the decision.

It's not a state issue.

[Comprehend]

Originally Posted by GeneCosta

The 2nd.

States shouldn't interpret constitutional amendments different from each other; it is the job of the Supreme Court. If the United States congress passes a constitution amendment making gay marriage legal, Texas adopts that amendment, neither the Texas government nor its court can decide to call homosexual marriage "unions".

I don't think the Texas law says anything about the 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" does it? I thought it was addressing self defense. That is a criminal law matter that is completely appropriate for a state legislature to address. There is nothing in the constitution that says anything about when self defense should be allowed is there?

The 9th amendment states:


The 10th states:


Only laws outside of the constitution's jurisdiction can be determined on an individual state-basis (driving age, recycling). If the Supreme Court says the 2nd amendment does not allow you to bring weapons to a public schools, that applies to all states having recognized the 2nd amendment, not just the ones that agree with the decision.

It's not a state issue.

Where would you suggest the Supreme Court has ruled that a person may not defend themself without retreating?

It is a state issue because there is no constitutional provision for when one may defend oneself and there is no clear-cut ruling by the Supreme Court saying any particular self-defense law (such as the one discussed) is unconstitutional.

[Jessica Magan]

I am a home owner and a gun owner. If some one is intrudeing in my home they will be shot it is that simple. If you are breaking into my home you obviously mean me some kind of harm and I am not going to wait around and find out what it is. I don't believe an intruder has rights nor do I believe an attacker anywhere be it a car office or parking lot has rights.

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Originally Posted by Radio Frequency X

Criminals Beware



Should these types of gun laws be restricted by the federal government?

Texas and their guns. Two things that will not be separated, at least not in this lifetime.

I worry about this bill's interpretation, particularly the part about work. If a coworker "threatens" to not turn in a report, is some corrupt judge in a small town going to let this through? I fear that this may well happen somewhere. Now the part about cars I can understand a little, as I think it ought to be a serious crime, maybe even a felony, for an outside person to intimidate someone else who is in a car. But shooting them right away sounds excessive.

FWIW, the entire purpose of "states rights" was to defend the institution of slavery. Are the supporters of this bill aware of this potential slippery slope?

Bowling for Columbine, anyone?

Originally Posted by Jessica Magan

I am a home owner and a gun owner. If some one is intrudeing in my home they will be shot it is that simple. If you are breaking into my home you obviously mean me some kind of harm and I am not going to wait around and find out what it is. I don't believe an intruder has rights nor do I believe an attacker anywhere be it a car office or parking lot has rights.

I agree 90%. What that other 10% is, I don't know; it just sounds like an automatic retaliation of force with force.

But I do concede that it is incredibly stupid to enter someone's home uninvited.

[NoahideHiker]

The standard for this law, which many states are adopting, is the Castle Doctrine. As it stands in most states including my own, when you defend yourself with a weapon you are basically arrested and you must prove you were justified in the defense in court. You must hire a lawyer at your own expense and prove that you met three criteria, 1) that you did not provoke the attack, 2) that you were in eminent threat of life or limb and 3) that you could not escape the situation (in the home you do not have to escape). So even though may have survived an encounter you will basically be economically wiped out with legal bills defending yourself.

The Castle Doctrine provides defense for someone who has defended themselves just like the criminal gets. Even with the Castle Doctrine you MUST BE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR LIFE OR LIMB. If someone walks up to you and says, "Give me your car!", but has no weapon you can't shoot them.

[NoahideHiker]

Originally Posted by Jessica Magan

I am a home owner and a gun owner. If some one is intrudeing in my home they will be shot it is that simple. If you are breaking into my home you obviously mean me some kind of harm and I am not going to wait around and find out what it is. I don't believe an intruder has rights nor do I believe an attacker anywhere be it a car office or parking lot has rights.

Unfortunately if you shoot someone who breaks into your house and they are unarmed you will go to prison. If an intruder breaks in you should never even have to see that person if you are smart. The best set up for a home I have found is this:

In my bedroom I have a cell phone at night, an extra house key on a glow stick, my gun. If someone breaks in the first thing I'm going to do is shut and lock my bedroom door and begin shouting instructions to whomever is breaking in, "I am calling 911 and I have a gun and I will use it if threatened!". Call 911. Open the bed room window and crack the glow stick and toss it out so the cops can have a key to my front door when they get there. All the while still shouting instructions to the intruder.

Only if the bad guy tries to enter my safe room does he get capped but 9 times out of ten he won't even hang around. The scenes of Hollywood movies of people sneaking around their own house in the dark with a gun looking for the bad guy are what get people killed in their own homes.

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Originally Posted by NoahideHiker

The standard for this law, which many states are adopting, is the Castle Doctrine. As it stands in most states including my own, when you defend yourself with a weapon you are basically arrested and you must prove you were justified in the defense in court. You must hire a lawyer at your own expense and prove that you met three criteria, 1) that you did not provoke the attack, 2) that you were in eminent threat of life or limb and 3) that you could not escape the situation (in the home you do not have to escape). So even though may have survived an encounter you will basically be economically wiped out with legal bills defending yourself.

The Castle Doctrine provides defense for someone who has defended themselves just like the criminal gets. Even with the Castle Doctrine you MUST BE IN DANGER OF LOSING YOUR LIFE OR LIMB. If someone walks up to you and says, "Give me your car!", but has no weapon you can't shoot them.

That's good in terms of making sure that someone doesn't cry self-defense when there were no such grounds.

That's bad in terms of the legal fees required. However, a law such as this isn't the source of the problem.