Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm,I made 1 error,which I corrected later & u think that u r in a position to snob my english...
America would be a paradise if u had more immigrants like me...speaking my english...
Still no clarification from the aged hippie...Combat or...cleaners..?
Anyway,it is sad to see so many pro-gun people stumble on the block of private property...
If a "no-gun "sign is legit,then a... "no...coloured " sign should be legit too...
Wrongamundo.
Protected classes are the result of something that people are, not a function of their ownership of property. They are not protected because of choices they have made.
An individual who is black, pregnant, female, handicapped, etc. cannot simply leave it at home.
I already posted that. "Keep and bear arms" does not mean a guaranteed right to wander around openly carrying a rifle. It is a privilege that can be revoked; it's written in to the law you quoted.
"Bear arms" is being used in a military sense, not in a "walk around" sense.
Utter nonsense. For over a century that's precisely how it's been interpreted in TX by the courts. And it clearly says "right" not privilege.
Let me repeat this quote: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State"
I do believe that means precisely what it says and is not strictly a military reference given "in lawful defense of himself" and "every citizen."
I haven't seen anyone able tp put such a spin on pretty clear language before.
Protected classes are the result of something that people are, not a function of their ownership of property. They are not protected because of choices they have made.
An individual who is black, pregnant, female, handicapped, etc. cannot simply leave it at home.
One right's the same as another. Protected classes are pure discrimination.
No, it hasn't been interpreted that way. If it was, then the state of Texas couldn't restrict you from carrying a handgun in the open, which they do.
Go look up anything that analyzes the language in gun amendments, it's used in a military sense.
You're flat out wrong. When Texas banned the carry of handguns, they did not ban the open carry of a long gun (shotgun or rifle) precisely because of that provision in the TX Constitution.
You're wrong about the gun amendments in state Constitutions being solely military. TX uses similar wording as Vermont.
Vermont's Constitution says:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
Here's what Vermont's supreme court said on the subject of gun rights:
"(Supreme Court of Vermont. Rutland. May 30, 1903.)
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS--ORDINANCES--CARRYING WEAPONS--VALIDITY.
1. Const. c. 1, art. 16, declares that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state. V. S. 4922, prohibits any person from carrying a dangerous weapon, openly or concealed, with the intent of injuring another. Section 4923 prohibits a person, while a member of and in attendance on a school, from having in his possession any dangerous weapon. Held, that a city ordinance prohibiting a person from carrying within the city any brass knuckles, pistol, slung shot, or weapon of similar character, or any weapon concealed on his person, without permission of the mayor or chief of police, so far as it relates to the carrying of a pistol under any circumstances without such consent, is repugnant to the Constitution, and to that extent void."
Alaska's Constitution says this: "A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
New Hampshire: "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state."
This is an interesting thread because it is about a problem that has to be solved...
Gun carry,open or concealed,is a civil right.
No proprietor,no business owner,nobody can violate that right.
In the same way that no business can prohibit blondes,Jews,blacks,homosexuals,disabled etc to enter,work or be served on its premises.
Tobacco use is not a right.Smokers can be banned...
I don't know the exact legal framework but we have to carry this issue to the Supreme Court,to ballots ,to Congressional & State Legislature politics.
Nobody should be able to deny us the right to lawfully carry a gun,openly or concealed...
Im sorry, i just have to laugh at the stupidity of this post.
Which protected class do non-homosexual White males belong to?
The whole notion of "protected classes" goes against the whole notion of equality.
In that case, let the majority always rule.
How many people do you think will vote for people to carry sidearms everywhere they go?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.