Gun permit allows quick access to Texas Capitol

Maybe ya oughta come in from the sun DAve.

Youre becoming extreme in your epithets.

How close were you to that guy who killed 8 people yesterday?

No. The "Standard Model" was adopted by the USSC and reaffirmed in June.
Approximately 100% of law professors (including liberals)
agreed that the 2A was to defend individual rights
and all 9 Justices of the USSC found that to be the case 9 to O.

No. The "Standard Model" was adopted by the USSC and reaffirmed in June.
Approximately 100% of law professors (including liberals)
agreed that the 2A was to defend individual rights
and all 9 Justices of the USSC found that to be the case 9 to O.

Actually you are wrong, not all of justices concurred with the Courts decision.
Stevens, BREYER, GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR had dissenting opinion.

Government was created subject to the condition
that it have NO JURISDICTION of personal possession of guns.
Government continues to have no such jurisdiction.

If u wanna fight for victim helplessness and criminal domination,
then amend the Constitution, by fighting it out legitimately,
as per Article 5 (i.e., 2/3 of each house of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of all of the States).

Freedom haters nazis have lost; Freedom lovers won.
Freedom haters commies have lost; Freedom lovers won.
Freedom haters gun controllers have lost; Freedom lovers won.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the
right of the people of each of the several States to maintain
a well-regulated militia. ...

Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on
the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing,
since it is clear that he considered and rejected
formulations that would have unambiguously protected
civilian uses of firearms.
....
The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus
describes an overriding concern about the potential threat
to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the
means by which to guard against that danger. But state
militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal
standing army so long as Congress retained the power
to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament
was needed.27

Government was created subject to the condition
that it have NO JURISDICTION of personal possession of guns.
Government continues to have no such jurisdiction.

If u wanna fight for victim helplessness and criminal domination,
then amend the Constitution, by fighting it out legitimately,
as per Article 5 (i.e., 2/3 of each house of Congress and ratification by 3/4 of all of the States).

Wow, david! That made no sense at all.

Perhaps you should read the dissents before making such a statement David.

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.

Quote:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the
right of the people of each of the several States to maintain
a well-regulated militia. ... [ Well regulated militia was a term of art, meaning a private militia, as distinct from a "selected militia" who were government guys. ]
Madison’s decision to model the Second Amendment on
the distinctly military Virginia proposal is therefore revealing,
since it is clear that he considered and rejected
formulations that would have unambiguously protected
civilian uses of firearms.
....
The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus
describes an overriding concern about the potential threat
to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the
means by which to guard against that danger. But state
militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal
standing army so long as Congress retained the power
to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament
was needed.27

OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[June 28, 2010]
JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.
In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantivedue process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment with this objective in view. See ante, at 41–44 (dissentingopinion). Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the carrying of arms for that purpose often puts others’ livesat risk. See ante, at 35–37. And the use of arms for pri-vate self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation. See ante, at 44–51.
The Court, however, does not expressly rest its opinionupon “substantive due process” concerns. Rather, it di-rects its attention to this Court’s “incorporation” prece-dents and asks whether the Second Amendment right to private self-defense is “fundamental” so that it applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See ante, at 11–19.
I shall therefore separately consider the question of “incorporation.” I can find nothing in the Second Amend-ment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that couldwarrant characterizing it as “fundamental” insofar as itseeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for pri-
2 MCDONALD v. CHICAGO
BREYER, J., dissenting
vate self-defense purposes. Nor can I find any justification for interpreting the Constitution as transferring ultimate regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms fromdemocratically elected legislatures to courts or from theStates to the Federal Government. I therefore conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment does not “incorporate”the Second Amendment’s right “to keep and bear Arms.” And I consequently dissent.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

I love your use of large red letters to insert your meaning into the ruling David while claiming the judges didn't mean what THEY said versus what YOU are saying.

Let me post you the paragraph from Stevens..

Quote:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

The only 'term of art" is you attempting to insert meaning where there clearly is NONE, David. You should be ashamed of such an obvious attempt to ignore meanings and insert your own biases into something that is quite clear.

Stevens was talking about state militias not private militias.

Quick question for you David.

Do you think the court decided it was a collective right when they decided Miller?

So, now you are saying the weapons should only be ones used by a militia?

You have lost me here David.

Did Miller refer to weapons suitable for use by the military and therefor suitable for a militia?

Do you think banning weapons based on their military usage is calling it an individual right?