'Take your a** home!' Heavily-armed black rights groups march through Austin chanting anti-illegal m

I don't care what color or political stance a group has if they are threatening violence. The rest of their message dries up for me when they make statements advocating for violence.

 

There is no other protest other than peaceful. Non-peaceful protest would be war.

 

Didn't make that argument. But hey, if you truly want to point a firearm at a police officer and threaten them, any police officer, be my guest and let's see how that works out for you.

 

I did. But to be clear, the OP said, "Openly saying they'll shoot people rather than raise their hands." So they would shoot people, innocent people instead of complying with the law? That is in and of itself a terroristic threat. Shooting innocent people, randomly, or specifically targeted for a political objective, is a terroristic threat of violence. '

You might want to look at Texas Penal Code 22.07.

 

So what.....our member here did not say those words. And he also said nothing that I could see that would equal support

 

You truly don't know anything about the welfare system here much less anything else for that matter. For starters, most of the people who are on welfare are working. Their pay isn't enough based on their family size and where they live to sustain them. For starters, the most who receive welfare are the children, the elderly, and the disabled. So you want the children to be forced to work instead of school. And how in the hell do you want the elderly to work? or for that matter, a person who is disabled?

The link below provides some interesting statistics about people on welfare and totally disproves your uneducated post.

https://fortunly.com/statistics/welfare-statistics/#gref

 

Sorry, but both of those groups are wannabes. You really want to join a group that advocates for the removal of the UN Arms Control Treaty or national permitless constitutional carry?

FPC, on the other hand, wants to allow any firearm, cannon, automatic, semi-automatic, etc, to be allowed to be purchased unhibited.

Both of these groups may cite the 2a and the founding fathers, but neither group adhere to the fundamentals of the US Constitution and all are just wannabe dictators on power trips. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

If you are not condoning such actions, then you are supporting such actions. And if you support such actions, as Kai'chang, Steve N, and others have openly done, then you are an accessory to the violence. No if's, and's, or butt's.

 

Lol you realize FPC is the one that has hit the most judicial homeruns recently..... right?
Wannabees? My dear friend: They are the big show.

That's what the Bruen case demands, because that's what the 2a demands. See how that works?

The fundamentals of the constitution? Explain how the fundamentals of the constitution allow the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed. Cite the primary source please.

 

That's not how that works but do go on in your ignorance.

You quoted the penal code of my state where I hold a license to practise law. Terroristic threat requires the person issuing the threat intend to put the person that hears in in fear of imminent danger of GBH or death. In this case, the speech cited is clearly performative political speech. No persons are being threatened. Its not a terroristic threat like, for example, a bomb threat would be.

 

That's a nice opinion that you have there ... A lot of times opinions are incorrect.... This time is no different.

 

The FPC keeps knocking it out of the park, and they -hate- them for it.
They know gun control, as they would have it, will soon cease to exist.

 

When an anti tells me they're not a good org and I should really prefer the NRA I know they're doing a great job.

 

for starters, you are misquoting the Bruen case. The Bruen case never decided permitless carry. What it did decide is how the "proper cause requirements" was worded did violate the 14th amendment. It was convoluted in SCOTUS's view and did not make unconstitutional the proper cause for concealed permits. That is still up to the states and the "gun money" to make that law a reality, as it did in Texas with the NRA and FPC. Thus, the ruling nullified the New York state law on concealed carry, which means, no concealed carry is allowed in New York except from the previous law on the books. Second, when it comes to firearms, the courts must always consider national security and public safety threats in any ruling involving the expansion of the 2a. When the 2a was passed, the biggest fear of the founders was a large standing army. Our history with the British and the monarch showed us that a large standing army was just as dangerous to liberty under the control of a few as any monarch, no matter how benevolent they may be. That is why we never had a large standing army until after the Civil War, and maintained that principle until then. Anyone from the age of 16 to 60 was to be in the militia and the militia was to be our defenders. that worked until the War of 1812 and we started to train professional officers with something called West Point. The original intent was for states and the federal government to support militias and those weapons that an average person used for their home and their defense were also the weapon. But Kentucky long rifles were not matched to formation line warfare, which was the dominant form of warfare in the late 18th up to the mid-19th century. The Kentucky Rifle was great for hunting, but took over a minute to load, had no mechanism to put a bayonet on the end, and those who were in the militia did not have the discipline to withstand a bayonet charge by the enemy. Most were accosted to Indian or guerilla warfare and that sometimes did not always work out the way they wanted it to.

There is a book called, "The Founders Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" which is probably something you should read if you have not already.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/10/...-safety-threats-posed-by-concealable-weapons/

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/...iven-outcomes-bruens-originalist-distortions/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...econd-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/

 

The Bruen case says if a gun control provision does not have an analog in the founding era, its violative of the 2nd amendment.
While Bruen didn't touch it specifically, its clarification of the test means that ANY gun control law you care to name (including permits for carry) is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

It is not up to the states: the 2a was incorporated thanks to the 14th amendment. Whomp whomp whomp.

The courts do not have the authority to consider anything else. Shall not be infringed means what it says, no balancing tests can be passed, see Bruen.

 

For starters reality, I live in Texas, 9th Generation. You may want to think about that for once.

Second, yes, that is how it works. If you are in the car, and the person in that car commits a felony, then you may be charged as an accessory to the crime, up to murder BTW. Your only choice is for you to first go to the police after the incident, turn yourself in, and tell the whole truth if you do not want those charges to be held against you. This is common and all I am doing is just that. Nothing more, nothing less. Second, two kids were arrested last week or two ago in the DFW area for making threats to schools and were charged with this crime. They wer threatening violence and one of the kids knew about this, said nothing, and too was charged. So, I would probably brush up on your legal procedures first before you start.

Finally, threatening violence IS NOT legitimate first amendment rights. Several Supreme Court Cases make that perfectly clear. First we have Schenck v. United States (1919) which sets the clear and present danger test. Second, we have Gitlow v. New York (1925) which allows the bad tendency test. Third, we Whitney v California which the court uses the distinction between advocacy and incidement. The more clear the incitement, the less likely it is protected by the First Amendment. When incitement to violence, it is not protected under the first amendment. Hate speech is as long as it does not incite to violence. So, you are wrong there. But then again, use that argument the next time you want to incide violence for a political cause. That defense will not work in Texas or any other state for that matter.

 

1: "When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct"
2: "The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation."

What sort of firearm regulation have we, as a nation, had since the 1790s?

"In sum, the Courts of Appeals’ second step is inconsistent with Heller’s historical approach and its rejection of means-end scrutiny. We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows...."

 

that is not what the Bruen Case decided. It decided that the proper cause was so vague that it violated the 14th amendment. It would have been extremely difficult under reasonable standards for anyone to obtain a concealed carry license. If that law was less ambiguous, it would have been allowed IMO as it is in a majority of states that allow concealed carry. But that varies depending on the state though.

Shall not be infringed does not mean what you think it means. It is an old 16th-century word and connotation.

 

Not an opinion, a choice. But choose wisely.

 

My attitude is that protests should be ignored. The way to fix things in government is through the election process. Too bad that doesn't work. So we have protests that don't fix anything either.

 

Again: Bruen clarifies the test used for 2a jurisprudence. That test does not allow for balancing tests like the 'national security' test you cite.
That test requires any statute being examined to have a historic analog in the founding era or its unconstitutional as an infringement.
Restrictions on carry didn't exist. Restrictions on type didn't exist. Restrictions on magazines didn't exist. Restrictions by action didn't exist. Etc.

 

O that's the best part: Essentially the only form of gun control we had wasn't applicable against full US citizens. Rather instead it was only applicable against 2nd classes of citizen IE Native Americans and Blacks, and never applicable to full citizens. Equal protection tells us classes of citizen are a no no and we're all 1st class citizens.
So none essentially.

 

Great, so you're ignorant of how the law works even in your own state like most lay people. Par for the course.
I'm a licensed attorney in the state, you may want to think about that for once.

1) the law of parties requires a willing criminal conspiracy
2) felony murder is rather specific as well and doesn't apply to just anything. For instance: If the driver assaults someone with the vehicle and you didn't help them plan it, you're good. Now, use that same vehicle in a planned robbery, different story.
3) No one is required to incriminate themselves or to testify so long as they do not actively abet the crime. Being a passenger in a car doesn't do that per se.
4) Cite the incident with these children less vaguely and let's examine what's occurred.
5) Ah yes the clear and present danger test "fire in a theatre". Schenck has LONG been overruled. Additionally: You're not talking about charging them with incitement, you're talking about charging them with terroristic threat. You've even cited the penal code section, which contains the elements. You DO understand that you have to prove each of those elements right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
You cite Schenk, Gitlow, and Whitney, all overturned by Brandenburg v Ohio which involved a klan rally with much the same content as the OP just about white supremacy rather than black supremacy.
You cite various tests: all overturned. Imminent lawless action is the test, and Texas as you can see takes great care with its elements of terroristic threat to cleave closely to that test. You have to INTEND to put someone in the apprehension of imminent lawless action to pass the elements of the penal statute. They didn't INTEND to do that here, rather instead, as in Brandenburg, they intended to posture and gesticulate for purposes of political speech. Hell, in Brandenburg they set an actual date for all this violence and THAT wasn't enough.

 

I'm sorry I was not specific enough for you. I guess it was too much to assume that people would know that I wasn't talking about children or the elderly and disabled and already working but about those that are able to work but refuse to get a job. You know, what with me saying "Start kicking people off of it that can work, but refuse to." It was an assumption on my part that most people were intelligent enough to know that children are not allowed to work in our society and that the elderly and disabled are generally unable to work "manual labor" jobs "(like farming)" therefore wouldn't fall under the category of "can work, but refuse to." Not to mention those already working generally also wouldn't fall under the category of "can work, but refuse to".

So again, I'm sorry I was not specific enough for you and assumed too much of you. I will try and do better in the future.

 

What a load of absolute CRAP. People are under no obligation to call out things that you, or even they, disagree with. Furthermore people have Rights. People can support those Rights even when they disagree with how a Right is used. That includes the right to not say a damn thing fyi.