TexasCHLforum.com

Chronology:
Militia Acts were not until 1792 and Militia Act of 1862

However the Bill of Rights, Second and Third Amendments in Articles 3 to 12, approved on September 25, 1789 and sent to the states for ratification ratified December 15, 1791

At that time, we were very suspicious of the power of a standing Federal army (Militia)
We had just gotten rid of British army controlling us, confiscating our stuff (3rd Amendment).
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... y#p1019598

I think earlier in this thread I linked to

Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia . http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... et#p677651

So, Amendment 2 was written 45 minutes before Amendment Three, with the same "mindset" mental process of allowing the People/property owners/population to protect themselves and their property from a militarized government.
If a general militia/standing army is a necessary evil, (comma) the right of the People shall not be infringed ...
(Also, The People/property owners needed protection from Quartering armed Soldiers, hence, Amendment 3 was written about 45 minutes after Amendment 2, with Amendment 2 providing the ways and means to ensure Amendment 3

Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner ...

--------------------------
Grammar and Right
Well regulated refers to the LEFT side of the comma, well regulated standing army militia.
Well regulated does not refer to the RIGHT side of the comma, the RIGHT of the Property Owners PEOPLE (which shall not be infringed

2
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.
3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
===============

Hopefully Judges understand Grammar and the history and relationship of 2A and 3A when reading this professors bunch of garbage they filed frivolously about how THE PEOPLE (Citizenry/Property Owners) need to be "well regulated"
(Which is precisely what prompted a revolution and Boston Tea Party, over regulation by the government)
THAT is why we have 2A and 3A to protect US PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT over-regulation, quartering soldiers them confiscating our "stuff" etc.


My neighbor explained it well (skip to 4:40 if you want)

Their argument attempts to re-write 2A to say a well regulated People .. instead of well regulated Militia (3A soldiers) being a necessary evil, (comma in both 2A and 3A [written 45 minutes apart with same mental outlook or thought process] separates soldiers/militia/standing army from People/property owners) the right of the People (see 3A property owners )to be armed (see 3A to prevent quartering soldiers) ... shall not be infringed

Jusme wrote:

rotor wrote:We are so fortunate that the law banning these sex toys in Texas was eliminated in 2008. They are a true danger to the population and I certainly don't want to see them in the hands of immature college students on campus. Who knows what kind of violence they may lead to. Perhaps there needs to be a size restriction.

Have any professors sued to keep them out of their classrooms?

Regarding the GunfreeUT "Protest" tonight
How do we file a freedom of Information request with UT PD to see how many citations are issued for violating Chapter 43 Penal Code
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.43.htm
Sec. 43.21
Sec. 43.22
Sec. 43.23
Sec. 43.24
I bet none are issued.

.@UTAustinPolice How many citations you issuing @ @GunFreeUT rally tonight for violating Ch 43 Penal Code Obscenity? http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.43.htm

JALLEN wrote:

techenigma wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

v7a wrote:Preliminary Injunction has been DENIED.

THANKS FOR THE UPDATE!!!! Of course I've seen nothing on the news !!!!

The news won't cover this. They like the headlines only, they never do updates on previous stories.

Sure they will. The ink is barely dry on the order. The news guys are flailing their word processors, getting comments from all the relevant players, measuring the anguish, deciding who will be assigned to audit those professors' courses to see if there are any fireworks, any bleeding to lead with.

Give it a couple hours.

Yep, An Austin Station yesterday covered Moov- in day and had Houston parents helping their daughter move in and said they had anxiety over "guns on campus" and also over the girl murdered at UT last year when it was gun-free and they wanted the daughter to stay in Houston, ...Austin stations are really covering this ... Police were interviewed yesterday and talked about their role and spoke to new students and stuff ... There's supposed to be a special "Town hall" in a day or so meeting where someone will blabber a bit so news can cover it ...

Good to know ;)

The court concludes at this stage in the proceedings that requiring public universities to
allow licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns is a basis for the Campus Carry Law that
bears a debatably rational relationship to the conceivable legitimate governmental end of
enabling individuals to defend themselves. See Reid, 979 F.2d at 1087. Further, the court
concludes that allowing private universities to prohibit concealed carry by licensed individuals

Case 1:16-cv-00845-LY Document 54 Filed 08/22/16 Page 9 of 11

bears a rational relationship to the legitimate governmental interest of respecting the private property rights of private universities.

It appears to the court that neither the Texas Legislature nor the Board of Regents has
overstepped its legitimate power to determine where a licensed individual may carry a concealed
handgun in an academic setting. The court concludes that Plaintiffs have failed to establish a
substantial likelihood of success on their equal-protection claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
IV. CONCLUSION
Because Plaintiffs at this time have failed to establish a substantial likelihood of ultimate
success on the merits of their asserted claims, their request for immediate relief must fail. The
court therefore need not and does not reach the remaining requirements for granting a
preliminary injunction. Bluefleld, 577 F.3d at 253 ("[A] preliminary injunction is an
extraordinary remedy which should not be granted unless the party seeking it has 'clearly carried
the burden ofpersuasion' on all four requirements."). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Application for Preliminary Injunction (Clerk's Doc.
No. 20) is DENIED.
SIGNED this of August, 2016

Austin TV News ... (Forgot if Fox 7Austin or KXAN 36 but Live Feed video tonight's News of GunFree UT protest of about 20 people in their orange shirts and megaphone, saying 9 people (out of what? 40,000) decided NOT to attend UT because of illogical fears of Law Abiding Citizens ... or something like that

http://kxan.com/2016/08/04/ut-professor ... lassrooms/

jb2012 wrote:I hope they enjoy paying for useless legal fees.

Agreed

I sent @KXAN_News a tweet to have the anchorman read and learn history instead of the Lib anti-gun propaganda

When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed." 34 Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia.
from http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... et#p677651

Three professors sue UT to keep guns out of their classrooms
http://kxan.com/2016/07/06/three-profes ... classroms/

On the air, the news anchorman said "Second Amendment guarantees the right for a Militia to be armed" ... A couple comments below the article noted that error in reading comprehension and history