TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:
The first 10 Amendments are called the "Bill of Rights".

There is no ambiguity. These10 amendments clearly apply ONLY TO the PEOPLE. The Bill of Rights establish and guarantee the freedoms for the people ( and grant to the people everything that is not specifically given to the fed.)

No it doesn't. Not historically. The States were not bound by the Bill of Rights, just the Feds. It wasn't until the 1800's that the courts applied Constitution to State laws as individual rights. Mind you most States have Constitutions that are very close to the fed but.....

EEllis wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:

Also I'm a huge firearm supporter and gun rights guy but this 2A crap is wearing thin with me. The 2nd doesn't say you can go anywhere and do everything with a rifle on your back and people are prohibited from being concerned. Limited what you can buy, own, and keep. Restrictions on movement and punitive taxes are 2nd A issues, not going to the movies with an AK.

Respectfully my friend, the 2nd Amendment does not say anything whatsoever about people being concerned. Please correct me if I misread what you wrote, but you cite restrictions on movement and punitive taxes as 2nd Amendment issues, then cite a restriction on movement (carrying an AK) into a movie as not being a 2nd Amendment issue. Come to think of it, nothing in the entire Constitution speaks to how people feel about the rights laid out. Constitutional rights are rights and are not subject to how we, or any American citizen, feels about them.

You are absolutely correct in this. The 2nd Amendment offers no restrictions, positive or negative, on what or where you can own or carry. It is silent on those issues. But we must deal with those two simple words "keep and bear." I believe those two words are at the heart of the issue.

Again, with all due respect, a lot of people have bled and died to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. I believe it is the greatest document ever penned by man and worthy of respect. Of course, you're free to disagree.

I did state, and have in several other threads, that I too disagree with the tactics of those who want to force the issue. I understand our frustration. I am frustrated too. I would hope we seek a real solution, not just another fire.

I don't disagree with how great the constitution is but I just disagree with what it means. In my opinion it wasn't meant to do what you think. The Constitution and the 2nd A wasn't ever meant to be applied to states. That was a later afectation that I'm glad occurred but there is no way in heck that anyone would of agreed to a document that prohibited them from having any rules of any sort regarding firearms. They were concerned that, that among other things, the govt would seize guns not that someone couldn't show off their rifle or wander around town with their handgun out and obvious. While I'm pro CHL and even OC I don't think it is necessary a 2nd A issue. Plenty of towns had firearm restriction when the Constitution was adopted and it wasn't an issue in 1790's. James Madison Proposed a bill that, in an effort to prevent people from violating Virginia game law. "bear(s) a gun out of his enclosed ground unless whilst performing military duty" would face criminal penalties. (bill for the preservation of deer 1785). NJ had laws as far back as 1799 against the carrying of "offensive weaponry"(pistols). Under Common law, which is what everyone operated under at the time, law enforcement could and did disarm people "in terror of the peace". Other states could require you to take an oath to the govt or have your guns taken away. There were limits some places on the amount of powder you could posses, think ammo now, and if you had more you had to store it in public armories at your expense.