TexasCHLforum.com

Full article (the brief is embedded): https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/scc-sc ... z56G6Zou6b

EXCERPT:

On January 29, 2018, Students for Concealed Carry (concealedcampus.org) and the Students for Concealed Carry Foundation (sccfund.org) filed a joint amicus curiae brief in Glass v. Paxton, No. 17-50641 (5th Cir). This federal lawsuit, filed by three professors at the University of Texas at Austin, seeks to nullify Texas' campus carry law and the University of Texas at Austin's campus carry policy. The case is currently on appeal to the Fifth Circuit after being dismissed by a district court judge.

Remember when Open Carry passed and Campus Carry passed all the massacres and bloodshed that happened immediately after the laws took effect?

Me Neither!

OneGun wrote:Remember when Open Carry passed and Campus Carry passed all the massacres and bloodshed that happened immediately after the laws took effect?

Me Neither!

I am clearly not very good at the whole "lying" thing. As a layperson in the skill set, I naively assumed that one should avoid telling lies that are certain to be disproved in a very short time frame. You know, things like the following:

"Under Trump's tax plan 80% of American's will see their taxes increase."

"If Campus Carry passes, we will have shootouts on a daily basis over classroom disagreements."

"Open carry will result in blood in the streets. Police officers will be unable to tell the good guys from the bad guys. Police resources will be consumed responding to reports of a man with a gun."

I mean, silly me. I assumed that you would want at least a chance of getting away with your lie. The above are not subjective statements. They are black and white, objective statements that the person saying them had to know were not only false, but would be disproven in short order. Maybe they are just relying on the absurdly short attention spans of the American public and hoping that people will forget they ever said these things? After all, they do have the MSM to help them rewrite history.

Soccerdad, you miss the point of the lie. The point is to prevent something from happening.
If the lie is successful, you don't have to defend it because Campus Carry never happened.
Example: Harry Reid saying the Mitt Romney cheated on his taxes. It was demonstrably false, but helped keep Romney out of the Whitehouse.
When it was demonstrated to be false, Harry's reply was "He didn't get elected, did he?"

Chemist45 wrote:Soccerdad, you miss the point of the lie. The point is to prevent something from happening.
If the lie is successful, you don't have to defend it because Campus Carry never happened.
Example: Harry Reid saying the Mitt Romney cheated on his taxes. It was demonstrably false, but helped keep Romney out of the Whitehouse.
When it was demonstrated to be false, Harry's reply was "He didn't get elected, did he?"

Yesterday, my son asked me, “Dad, what’s the difference between a politician and a flying pig?”

“I don’t know son. What is the difference?”

“The ‘f’”.

If we had Federal justices who read and understood the plain English of the Second Amendment, the decision in this case would be to rule 46.03(a)(1) unconstitutional.

I'm not holding my breath.