gun owners

[DMC]

You have standing. Sue.

I've already expressed my opinion that you would lose that lawsuit, as courts have ruled that prohibitions on carrying a concealed weapon are lawful under the second amendment.

Show me the paragraph in case law that says CHL is cons utional. I'm waiting.

Of course prohibitions are lawful. Lawful and cons utional aren't the same things. You're using terms interchangeably that aren't interchangeable. Either way, CHL isn't about prohibition, it's about exclusion. Concealed carry was always prohibited, CC laws set exclusions based on submission of personal information, training and a regular fee. I didn't have an issue with that either. The issue I have is with how Texas considers open carry to be something that requires some form of permit. Since a permit is required, then other caveats can also be attached, like insurance. The Texas legislature could easily just pass a bill saying that handgun insurance has to be carried by anyone who wishes to get a permit to open carry. Permits indicate the 2nd Amendment isn't being considered as the driving force behind open carry, since no permit should be required if it's your cons utional right to do so.

[Th'Pusher]

Show me the paragraph in case law that says CHL is cons utional. I'm waiting.

To my knowledge, the legality of Texas' CHL has not been challenged, which is why I recommend you sue the state of Texas. I think you'll lose that case.

Of course prohibitions are lawful. Lawful and cons utional aren't the same things. You're using terms interchangeably that aren't interchangeable.

For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

Scalia's words, not mine. I'd suggest you take it up with him, but he's dead.

Either way, CHL isn't about prohibition, it's about exclusion. Concealed carry was always prohibited, CC laws set exclusions based on submission of personal information, training and a regular fee. I didn't have an issue with that either. The issue I have is with how Texas considers open carry to be something that requires some form of permit. Since a permit is required, then other caveats can also be attached, like insurance. The Texas legislature could easily just pass a bill saying that handgun insurance has to be carried by anyone who wishes to get a permit to open carry. Permits indicate the 2nd Amendment isn't being considered as the driving force behind open carry, since no permit should be required if it's your cons utional right to do so.

Sue and stop whining about it.

you'll lose.

btw - the Second Amendment Foundation doesn't even agree with you

Here is a suit they filed in MD and won based on a requirement that residents show a "good and substantial reason" to get a handgun permit.

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...ons utional/

We're not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there is a right to bear arms

[DMC]

Still waiting for a paragraph from case law that addresses CHL and the cons ution. For pages you claimed Scalia's opinion was about CHL but it's clearly not. It even goes on to mention examples of prohibited persons like felons and such, but the state extends that to people who owe child support and taxes, and to folks with less than felony level records who are otherwise legally allowed to purchase a handgun. The state controls open carry just like concealed carry, and I feel that will be challenged. Like CHL -> Open carry, these things move in steps. DC vs er reversed a prior USSC opinion, thats how it goes.

You have moved the goalpost to winning a case now, no longer arguing your original stance.

It does not matter what other groups have accepted. Submission has never indicated right or wrong, which is why compromise is how most cases are settled.

[Th'Pusher]

Still waiting for a paragraph from case law that addresses CHL and the cons ution. For pages you claimed Scalia's opinion was about CHL but it's clearly not. It even goes on to mention examples of prohibited persons like felons and such, but the state extends that to people who owe child support and taxes, and to folks with less than felony level records who are otherwise legally allowed to purchase a handgun. The state controls open carry just like concealed carry, and I feel that will be challenged. Like CHL -> Open carry, these things move in steps. DC vs er reversed a prior USSC opinion, thats how it goes.

You have moved the goalpost to winning a case now, no longer arguing your original stance.

It does not matter what other groups have accepted. Submission has never indicated right or wrong, which is why compromise is how most cases are settled.

No goalpost move on this one either buddy. It seems you throw that out when you're stuck. My initial reply to your claim that CHL is uncons utional was to say I did not believe your claim would hold up in court (i.e. winning a case and absolutely my initial stance) as it's well established the 2nd amendment is not limitless.

That wouldn't stand up in court imo as SCOTUS has already established the 2nd amendment is not limitless. Otherwise, you'd have gun nuts suing states with CHL laws. The NRA won't have that. They know they'd lose and they don't want that precedent established.

I then went on to quote the limitations from er.

Once I had established your boundaries, you then expounded on your argument (read shifted) to the permitting process specific to Texas. I acknowledged that it was cute that your new fully expounded upon argument could only be resolved by a court and suggested you stop being a whiny pussy and sue the state.

You then flop around repeating you've already said with more low-value posting.

That's the tldr version anyway...

[CosmicCowboy]

I gotta go with Pusher on this one. The historical acceptance of regulations on firearms in public goes back almost all the way to the era when the originators of the cons ution and bill of rights were still alive and well.

[Th'Pusher]

I gotta go with Pusher on this one. The historical acceptance of regulations on firearms in public goes back almost all the way to the era when the originators of the cons ution and bill of rights were still alive and well.

[TheSanityAnnex]

It takes a on the the absolute no infringement take at the minimum. Quit looking at the tree and hoping and instead look around you, dim.

Remember this started with you said it meant "like clockwork" exclusively. You were parroting NRA blogs of course and still do which is likely why you lose sight of the argument.

You didn't answer my question. What do you think the meaning of well regulated is in the 2nd amendment? Why didn't the framers specify who would do the regulating like they did every other time in the Cons ution?

I never said it meant "like clockwork", you are making up. I said how it was being used meant "in proper working order".

[TheSanityAnnex]

I quoted The Federalist whose purpose was to explain the Cons ution; there are few better sources for explaining the framer's intent. Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS cites it repeatedly throughout making case law. If someone would quote Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence it would have a similar gravitas, dimwit.

Don't you have a sibling to go kill or steal from or something?

Why did you leave out the part of Federalist 29 where he says attempting to regulate the militia would be futile?

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would en le them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured."

[DMC]

I gotta go with Pusher on this one. The historical acceptance of regulations on firearms in public goes back almost all the way to the era when the originators of the cons ution and bill of rights were still alive and well.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think you're agreeing with? What do you think my argument is?

[DMC]

No goalpost move on this one either buddy. It seems you throw that out when you're stuck. My initial reply to your claim that CHL is uncons utional was to say I did not believe your claim would hold up in court (i.e. winning a case and absolutely my initial stance) as it's well established the 2nd amendment is not limitless.



I then went on to quote the limitations from er.

Once I had established your boundaries, you then expounded on your argument (read shifted) to the permitting process specific to Texas. I acknowledged that it was cute that your new fully expounded upon argument could only be resolved by a court and suggested you stop being a whiny pussy and sue the state.

You then flop around repeating you've already said with more low-value posting.

That's the tldr version anyway...

You asked if me CHL is uncons utional. Since CHL is a Concealed Handgun License and each state has its own gun laws and carry laws, I have to address Texas CHL, that's where I live and where I hold the CHL. I addressed the current situation with CHL/open carry and you quoted a decision from a case in DC where a guy wanted to buy and store a gun in his home, because the verbiage had "concealed" in it. You claimed it applied to CHL when DC didn't even have a concealed carry permit available.

Then you moved the goalpost to whether or not I could win a case against the state of Texas (you didn't establish my boundaries, you just relinquished your prior argument with the wave of a virtual hand). I explained CC is an exclusive law, while open carry is inclusive (everyone is allowed to open carry per the 2nd Amendment unless they lose that right). I explained that CC was never legal in the past, and it became allowed through conditions. Then along came open carry where Texas decides to use the same conditions as concealed carry, and they allow a CHL holder to open carry without any extra conditions. I explained that the problem is that concealed carry is the special condition, while open carry is not. So Texas has effectively created a condition where only CHL holders can open carry, meaning you cannot be trusted with your 2nd Amendment rights unless you meet conditions that are set for concealed carry.

Meanwhile in many other states you still need a permit to carry concealed but not to carry open. That's how it should be. Open carry is the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". DC vs er merely decided that a handgun qualifies as "arms", contrary to what a prior USSC case decided. So if the argument is that a handgun isn't necessarily to be considered "arms" then a person with a handgun cannot be considered to be armed. We know that's not how it is though.

So unless you wanted to know how all states that issue CHL align with the cons ution, you must, of necessity, have been referring to the state in which I live.

The problem is you know nothing about gun laws, don't know the difference between concealed carry and a license, you just make it up as you go.

[CosmicCowboy]

You asked if me CHL is uncons utional. Since CHL is a Concealed Handgun License and each state has its own gun laws and carry laws, I have to address Texas CHL, that's where I live and where I hold the CHL. I addressed the current situation with CHL/open carry and you quoted a decision from a case in DC where a guy wanted to buy and store a gun in his home, because the verbiage had "concealed" in it. You claimed it applied to CHL when DC didn't even have a concealed carry permit available.

Then you moved the goalpost to whether or not I could win a case against the state of Texas (you didn't establish my boundaries, you just relinquished your prior argument with the wave of a virtual hand). I explained CC is an exclusive law, while open carry is inclusive (everyone is allowed to open carry per the 2nd Amendment unless they lose that right). I explained that CC was never legal in the past, and it became allowed through conditions. Then along came open carry where Texas decides to use the same conditions as concealed carry, and they allow a CHL holder to open carry without any extra conditions. I explained that the problem is that concealed carry is the special condition, while open carry is not. So Texas has effectively created a condition where only CHL holders can open carry, meaning you cannot be trusted with your 2nd Amendment rights unless you meet conditions that are set for concealed carry.

Meanwhile in many other states you still need a permit to carry concealed but not to carry open. That's how it should be. Open carry is the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". DC vs er merely decided that a handgun qualifies as "arms", contrary to what a prior USSC case decided. So if the argument is that a handgun isn't necessarily to be considered "arms" then a person with a handgun cannot be considered to be armed. We know that's not how it is though.

So unless you wanted to know how all states that issue CHL align with the cons ution, you must, of necessity, have been referring to the state in which I live.

The problem is you know nothing about gun laws, don't know the difference between concealed carry and a license, you just make it up as you go.

The problem with your argument is that open carry has historically been regulated on a case by case basis as well and is not an automatic second amendment right. A good example would have been the gun check stations in towns during the "old west".

[Th'Pusher]

You asked if me CHL is uncons utional. Since CHL is a Concealed Handgun License and each state has its own gun laws and carry laws, I have to address Texas CHL, that's where I live and where I hold the CHL. I addressed the current situation with CHL/open carry and you quoted a decision from a case in DC where a guy wanted to buy and store a gun in his home, because the verbiage had "concealed" in it. You claimed it applied to CHL when DC didn't even have a concealed carry permit available.

Incorrect. I cited the limitations in er as it is the most recent SCOTUS ruling on firearm possession and supported my argument that the 2nd amendment was not limitless. Your initial response "This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms." read as if you believed there were no limits on the 2nd amendment. Forgive me for stating the obvious.

Then you moved the goalpost to whether or not I could win a case against the state of Texas (you didn't establish my boundaries, you just relinquished your prior argument with the wave of a virtual hand).

Also incorrect. My argument that CHL was not uncons utional was intact and that your (very vague at the time) position would not stand up in court had been established.

I explained CC is an exclusive law, while open carry is inclusive (everyone is allowed to open carry per the 2nd Amendment unless they lose that right). I explained that CC was never legal in the past, and it became allowed through conditions. Then along came open carry where Texas decides to use the same conditions as concealed carry, and they allow a CHL holder to open carry without any extra conditions. I explained that the problem is that concealed carry is the special condition, while open carry is not. So Texas has effectively created a condition where only CHL holders can open carry, meaning you cannot be trusted with your 2nd Amendment rights unless you meet conditions that are set for concealed carry.

All completely irrelevant to the fact that states have limited the right to carry a concealed weapon and these limitations have been held up in court.

Meanwhile in many other states you still need a permit to carry concealed but not to carry open. That's how it should be. Open carry is the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". DC vs er merely decided that a handgun qualifies as "arms", contrary to what a prior USSC case decided. So if the argument is that a handgun isn't necessarily to be considered "arms" then a person with a handgun cannot be considered to be armed. We know that's not how it is though.

None of this is pertinent to my argument.

So unless you wanted to know how all states that issue CHL align with the cons ution, you must, of necessity, have been referring to the state in which I live.

Sue.

The problem is you know nothing about gun laws, don't know the difference between concealed carry and a license, you just make it up as you go.

And you just say a lot of stuff.

[DMC]

The problem with your argument is that open carry has historically been regulated on a case by case basis as well and is not an automatic second amendment right. A good example would have been the gun check stations in towns during the "old west".

There's a difference between "regulated" and "prohibited". Under current law, open carry is prohibited in Texas unless you have a permit, and the permit will not be issued to people who can otherwise lawfully purchase a firearm, such as people who owe taxes or child support, or who have received deferred adjudication. In other states, open carry is allowed, concealed carry is prohibited without permit. Texas is considering open carry the same way other states including Texas considers concealed carry.

30.06 signs still apply, which is fine (I don't consider old west traditions to be standard for adherence to the BoR), as do trespassing laws. It's different to say "you cannot bear arms" than to say "you cannot bear arms here". Where private ownership is concerned, the owner should reserve the right to set certain conditions. One could restrict free speech in an establishment that shows movies (quietness, no texting, etc...) for example. You can easily leave there if you feel the need to exercise your rights. You can't say the same for entire state however. Sure you could leave the state, but that doesn't mean the state of Texas is privately owned (though about 95% of it is).

It's just an opinion, I can lawfully open carry and never have. I rarely carry concealed either. But if discussing cons utionality, I think eventually if someone challenges it the open carry provision will lose the requirement for permit, if nothing more than to maintain reciprocity with other states.

[DMC]

Incorrect. I cited the limitations in er as it is the most recent SCOTUS ruling on firearm possession and supported my argument that the 2nd amendment was not limitless. Your initial response "This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms." read as if you believed there were no limits on the 2nd amendment. Forgive me for stating the obvious.

I never even indicated there were no limits. You seem dead set on using strawman arguments though so have at it. er vs DC did not address CHL, though you said it did (a claim you later abandoned).

Also incorrect. My argument that CHL was not uncons utional was intact and that your (very vague at the time) position would not stand up in court had been established.

You used er vs DC which doesn't address Texas CHL or CHL in general so your rebuttal was moot. Saying "there are limitations" is too vague an argument to serve any useful purpose in this discussion. What limitations does er vs DC put on concealed or open carry? If I were to just take your comment at face value, a slippery slope fallacy become apparent.

All completely irrelevant to the fact that states have limited the right to carry a concealed weapon and these limitations have been held up in court.

This is merely a problem of you oversimplifying and falsely equivocating the terms "CHL" and "concealed carry".

A: Drivers License

is different than

B: Driving

A: Concealed Handgun License

is different than

B: Concealed carry

You asked about A but you're rebutting as if you asked about B instead.

None of this is pertinent to my argument.

You don't have a legitimate argument.

Sue.

You asked the question. Be more specific. I have no desire to file suit.

And you just say a lot of stuff.

Because you're a dumb with zero ability to stay on topic, low intellectual honesty and no integrity. I slap you around on the regular, forum .

[Th'Pusher]

I never even indicated there were no limits. You seem dead set on using strawman arguments though so have at it.

No strawman. Your initial response read as if the 2nd amendment was limitless. I felt the need to rebut that assertion. You've since elaborated and I am fully aware that you accept that fact.

er vs DC did not address CHL, though you said it did (a claim you later abandoned).

I did not say that it addressed CHL.

You used er vs DC which doesn't address Texas CHL or CHL in general so your rebuttal was moot.

I used er to establish limits on the 2nd amendment and later noted the three laws that were upheld specific to concealed carry. Not CHL.

Saying "there are limitations" is too vague an argument to serve any useful purpose in this discussion. What limitations does er vs DC put on concealed or open carry? If I were to just take your comment at face value, a slippery slope fallacy become apparent.

I was obviously referring to the limitations you claimed were uncons utional.

This is merely a problem of you oversimplifying and falsely equivocating the terms "CHL" and "concealed carry".
A: Drivers License

is different than

B: Driving

A: Concealed Handgun License

is different than

B: Concealed carry

You asked about A but you're rebutting as if you asked about B instead.

You don't have a legitimate argument.

I do. My argument is that Texas CHL is not uncons utional. Courts have consistently upheld state laws that regulate possession of a concealed weapon and CHL is the mechanism by which Texas chooses to regulate.

You asked the question. Be more specific. I have no desire to file suit.

Fine. Let Texas trample on your perceived right.

Because you're a dumb with zero ability to stay on topic,

I've stayed on topic while you've been figuring out your argument.

low intellectual honesty and no integrity.

I disagree with your assessment of me.

I slap you around on the regular, forum .

This is a demonstrably false statement.

[DMC]

No strawman. Your initial response read as if the 2nd amendment was limitless. I felt the need to rebut that assertion. You've since elaborated and I am fully aware that you accept that fact.

A bit of quote history...

Is CHL an infringement on the second amendment?

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

End quote history...

again

I did not say that it addressed CHL.

more quote history...emphasis mine

You said CLH infringed on 2nd amendment rights. I quoted a SCOTUS opinion, from an originalist justice no less, refuting your claim outright. You say it's a state issue. Do you know what happens when a state passes a law that's uncons utional?

sorry, but you're kind of an idiot.

End quote history...

So yeah, you did

I used er to establish limits on the 2nd amendment and later noted the three laws that were upheld specific to concealed carry. Not CHL.

lol er wasn't about concealed carry. Limits were never in question. I showed above that you tried to refute my CHL opinion based on er vs DC.

I was obviously referring to the limitations you claimed were uncons utional.

lol no... you had no idea what I was claiming to be uncons utional. It had nothing to do with concealed carry, as I keep trying to drill into that thick skull of yours.

I do. My argument is that Texas CHL is not uncons utional. Courts have consistently upheld state laws that regulate possession of a concealed weapon and CHL is the mechanism by which Texas chooses to regulate.

still not catching on I see..

Quote history..

Actually it is. This is why states like Vermont have no such thing and open carry is a right, as they interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean what it says, keep and bear arms. It's a step above not being allowed to carry a gun at all though. It imposes some caveats that requires the citizen to relinquish private information and pay a tax.

End quote history..

You're talking about concealed carry, not the license to carry concealed. It's the license that's being used as a permit for open carry as well, which you probably have no idea about. I believe this is the 1st time you even mentioned the license. You probably thought CHL was concealed handgun law.

Fine. Let Texas trample on your perceived right.

Not just mine.

I've stayed on topic while you've been figuring out your argument.

Sure you have. You just stayed on a different topic than the original. I've never swayed.

I disagree with your assessment of me.

Doesn't surprise me. I get that all the time from subordinates.

This is a demonstrably false statement.

We both know it's true.

[Th'Pusher]

You hadn't even formulated your argument when I said I refuted your claim outright. That came later in the thread with this little nugget where you start backpedaling and shifting your argument.

I don't find the CHL to violate the 2A with all other things being equal, however the fact that a CHL permit, or any permit is required to open carry does. The 2A is supposedly the permit. It's the "concealed" portion of the law that allows it to sneak in under the cons utional radar. If Texas allowed non-permitted open carry I wouldn't consider needing a permit to conceal to be an infringement. Since they don't, then it is. DC vs er wasn't about open carry vs concealment.

We've already been down this road.

I understand your ever evolving argument. I'm glad I was able to help you get there.

And still, I disagree with you. Texas CHL is not uncons utional and your argument would not hold up in court imo.

The only way you can prove me wrong is to sue the state of Texas. But you have no desire to do so

[DMC]

You hadn't even formulated your argument when I said I refuted your claim outright. That came later in the thread with this little nugget where you start backpedaling and shifting your argument.



We've already been down this road.

I understand your ever evolving argument. I'm glad I was able to help you get there.

And still, I disagree with you. Texas CHL is not uncons utional and your argument would not hold up in court imo.

The only way you can prove me wrong is to sue the state of Texas. But you have no desire to do so

More lies.

You weren't catching on. That was my original and only opinion. I was clarifying because of the relative density of your cranium.

You still have no idea how case law works or that the cons ution is interpreted and precedence only guides opinions, it doesn't set in stone any specific interpretation. Ergo even a successful suit wouldn't change anything where our interpretations differ. Some states agree with me already, but you're holding out for Texas. You're not very sharp if you think cases daisy chain BoR interpretation instead of each going back to the original do ent and only using case law as something to agree or disagree with where that interpretation is concerned.

[Th'Pusher]

More lies.

You weren't catching on. That was my original and only opinion. I was clarifying because of the relative density of your cranium.

Nope. You were talking about relinquishing private information and paying a tax.

I am not going to apologize for your lazy laziness.

[DMC]

Nope. You were talking about relinquishing private information and paying a tax.

I am not going to apologize for your lazy laziness.

You're ing stupid.

[Th'Pusher]

You're ing stupid.

Is that all you got, pussy

[DMC]

Is that all you got, pussy

I've laid out my case clearly. You're just too dense to latch on or too dishonest. You're not a good troll because you respond too often.

[Th'Pusher]

I've laid out my case clearly. You're just too dense to latch on or too dishonest. You're not a good troll because you respond too often.

Not trolling. I understand your argument and I disagree with it. As does the 2nd amendment foundation.

[DMC]

Not trolling. I understand your argument and I disagree with it. As does the 2nd amendment foundation.

You don't understand it, as illustrated in my lengthy post above with historical posting notations. You're just doubling down on stupid. Since you don't understand it, your rebuttal and sources are moot. Have fun flogging that strawman.

[Th'Pusher]

You don't understand it, as illustrated in my lengthy post above with historical posting notations. You're just doubling down on stupid. Since you don't understand it, your rebuttal and sources are moot. Have fun flogging that strawman.

I understand your argument. It boils down to - Texas is using CHL as a permit for open carry.

Strawman? Do you just throw out logical fallacies hoping one applies?