• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big Texas; Big Gun Rights

Should the Federal Government Limit State Gun Laws?


  • Total voters
    16

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
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

Res Ipsa Loquitur
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.
 
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

Well-Known Member
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?

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

Religious Headbanger
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

Religious Headbanger
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

Well-Known Member
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.
 
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. I guess this is what Texas is trying to return to.

Bowling for Columbine, anyone?



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.
I live in Texas and I can tell you right now no one is pushing to reenact slavery. I resent that people constantly assume that southern people are ignorant bigots. Secondly I highly doubt any judge is going to allow someone to shoot their coworker over a disagreement. As for the columbine comment, the tragedy in Columbine had nothing to do with gun safety laws and everything to do with parents and teachers not doing their jobs. Teachers should make themsleves more aware of bullying and actually try to help the victims. And parents should be home and awake enough to know where their kids are and what there doing. If your not up to the challenge get sterilized and don't have kids. But stop expecting everyone else to give up their rights because you can,t handle being a parent.
 
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.
Sorry I forgot to say I would try to escape first and you are right I would never try to sneak up on an intruder. But I also would not holler instructions to him letting him know where I am on the off chance he has a gun too. I just get a little excitable about having the right to protect myself.
 

lombas

Society of Brethren
While guns in my country are outlawed, I do support that gun ownership should be legal, or at least me decriminalized, though I don't think I would purchase one myself.

What the question is concerned: decentralization is the only way to individual freedom. Giving a bloc of 300 million people the same government isn't healthy. Why should anyone living in Alaska have anything to say how Texans or Vermonters should live?
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
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.

uh. pretty close. one big thing you are missing is that when the situation looks justified, the DA will likely not charge you at all. This happens more than you may realize.
 

Comprehend

Res Ipsa Loquitur
I was speaking of my own state of Ohio. I know some states allow the use of force in protecting property. Can't say I agree with it but that is the case.

If they break into your house and it is occupied, you are defending life and not property (if you reasonably fear for your life or the life of another person) regardless of whether they are armed or not.

I do understand each state is a little different but I am pretty sure if the house is occupied and you are afraid, you are defending your life and not property... could be wrong...
 

BFD_Zayl

Well-Known Member
I do not agree with the fact of everyone carrying a gun anytime. if someone is threatening you in public...well thats what cops and other people are for. if its your home and the person is threatening you or your family, blow their ******* head off.
 

NoahideHiker

Religious Headbanger
I do not agree with the fact of everyone carrying a gun anytime. if someone is threatening you in public...well thats what cops and other people are for. if its your home and the person is threatening you or your family, blow their ******* head off.

Police are not here to defend us. They are here to enforce the law. Ever had to call 911? How long did it take for them to get there? It takes mere seconds to draw a knife, cross a room and stab someone to death. Police are the ones who fill out the paper work on attacks, not the ones who prevent them.

Attacks rarely happen in the home. It is every single person's inalienable right to defend themselves from threat of death or bodily harm no matter where that may be. But with rights come responsibility. There is a natural force continuum that one most follow that meets force with near equal force. It is also the responsibility of the person who does choose to carry a gun to be properly trained in it's safe use. Should everyone be allowed to carry a gun? No. Anyone who has been properly trained should be allowed to carry a gun.
 

NoahideHiker

Religious Headbanger
If they break into your house and it is occupied, you are defending life and not property (if you reasonably fear for your life or the life of another person) regardless of whether they are armed or not.

I do understand each state is a little different but I am pretty sure if the house is occupied and you are afraid, you are defending your life and not property... could be wrong...

You are only defending your life if they are actively seeking to do you harm. If someone is down stairs unhooking my TV and DVD player, even though it's my house, they are not an immediate threat to my life.

If someone were attacking me or my family I wouldn't think for a second about using my gun to stop them. But the effects of that would never leave me for the rest of my life no matter how justified it may be. We're talking about a human being's life. Not an abstract criminal in the paper. I wouldn't want to pay that price if it isn't avoidable.

believe it or not the fact that I do carry a gun, nearly every day, has made me more of a pacifist than if I weren't carrying. I know my surroundings better, I'm more aware and I avoid obviously situations where the gun might be used.
 

UnTheist

Well-Known Member
Aren't the majority of break-ins because of somebody wanting to get revenge from that person? Or are random breakins of a guy that doesn't even know you more common? Just curious
 

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
If they break into your house and it is occupied, you are defending life and not property (if you reasonably fear for your life or the life of another person) regardless of whether they are armed or not.

Is your TV set so important that you're willing to kill someone for it? I can understand shooting someone out of defense for a person, but I have no respect for someone shooting up a pick-pocket.
 
Top