holy sh*t!

[crazydoc]

The Texas legislature is doing some almighty important work. Passed by the senate, now moving on. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1. Chapter 1, Education Code, is amended by adding
	Section 1.0041 to read as follows:
	Sec. 1.0041. DISPLAY OF TEN COMMANDMENTS. (a) A public
	elementary or secondary school shall display in a conspicuous place
	in each classroom of the school a durable poster or framed copy of
	the Ten Commandments that meets the requirements of Subsection (b).
	(b) A poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments
	described by Subsection (a) must:
	(1) include the text of the Ten Commandments as
	provided by Subsection (c) in a size and typeface that is legible to
	a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom in which
	the poster or framed copy is displayed; and
	(2) be at least 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall. https://legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB1515/2023

 

[JohnRoberts]

Oh dear.... They wouldn't do that in CA....

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Stick it on the ceiling.

Cheers

IAn

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yup... In England King Charles is the titular head of the church of England. The US federal government doesn't roll that way.

The "establishment clause" of the first amendment spells out the separation of church and state for the federal government.

State law is a different animal... It's amazing how partisan politics is turning every single thing into a republican/democratic binary aspect.

JR

 

[Recording Engineer]

The "establishment clause" of the first amendment spells out the separation of church and state for the federal government.

State law is a different animal...

And state law cannot go against amendments.

 

[Matador]

Clearly against Article 4, paragraph two (Supremacy Clause). But I guess with the Handmaiden on the Supreme Court, anything is up for grabs these days.

Stick it on the ceiling.

Stick it in the urinal! Would make the "thou shall not take the lords name in vain" commandment more apropos, when your aim isn't so good.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

And state law cannot go against amendments.

Except all the 2A laws that do, for example.

 

[Recording Engineer]

Except all the 2A laws that do, for example.

Name a single state where you cannot buy arms in.

 

[fallout]

Hey @Matador, tell us a good Islam joke. Now's your chance!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lis-muslim-prayer-call-all-hours/11673455002/

 

[pucho812]

Name a single state where you cannot buy arms in.

Insanity. If you are labeled legally crazy you can’t buy a firearm.

 

[pucho812]

Hey @Matador, tell us a good Islam joke. Now's your chance!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lis-muslim-prayer-call-all-hours/11673455002/

Have you heard adhan? I wouldn’t want that over any loud speaker. Can’t they play Prince instead, he was from Minneapolis and it’s more catchy.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Name a single state where you cannot buy arms in.

Oh, let's see. Connecticut requires a permit for all firearms. If you have to ask permission from the government to buy a firearm, that's infringement. Hawaii is similar. California requires a firearm safety certificate (with test and fee), which is effectively a permit, for all firearm purchases and also for ammunition purchases. There are many other example states.

Magazine capacity limits constitute "infringement."

And before the ridiculous militia arguments come out, read current law here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

 

[Recording Engineer]

Oh, let's see. Connecticut requires a permit for all firearms. If you have to ask permission from the government to buy a firearm, that's infringement. Hawaii is similar. California requires a firearm safety certificate (with test and fee), which is effectively a permit, for all firearm purchases and also for ammunition purchases. There are many other example states.

Magazine capacity limits constitute "infringement."

And before the ridiculous militia arguments come out, read current law here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

You did not name a single one, because there aren’t any.

You’re speaking on limitations, regulations, issuance, and safety… States have rights (as meticulously argued by lawyers and judiciously ruled by judges) on those details of how to go about exercising 2A rights by their citizens.

Clearly, there are no state rights to consider when it comes to separation of church and state in the first amendment. This proposal is an obnoxious violation since it would be government-required.

This is NOT just some coach praying on the field; regardless of those that may present such things and think they can get away with it because of that US Supreme Court case.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

You did not name a single one, because there aren’t any.

I named several.

You’re speaking on limitations, regulations, issuance, and safety… States have rights (as meticulously argued by lawyers and judiciously ruled by judges) on those details of how to go about exercising 2A rights by their citizens.

Limitations, regulations, etc. are infringements. You might notice that in the Bill of Rights no other enumerated right has the strong language "shall not be infringed." If you have to ask permission from the government (whose powers are limited by the Constitution) to exercise a "right" then you no longer have a right, you have a privilege.

Do you need a permit to write and distribute a pamphlet; a blog in modern terms? Do you require a safety permit before holding a political or religious discussion on private property? Of course not.

Clearly, there are no state rights to consider when it comes to separation of church and state in the first amendment. This proposal is an obnoxious violation since it would be government-required.

If you can apply states rights to any fundamental rights (e.g., 2A) then you've already proceeded down the slippery slope to slow-roasted tyranny. Maybe one day your eyes will open when a right you care about* is at stake.

This is NOT just some coach praying on the field; regardless of those that may present such things and think they can get away with it because of that US Supreme Court case.

I'm not arguing that point. But your double standard, yet again, is shown in stark relief.

*All citizens should endeavor to protect all rights from government intrusion.

 

[Matador]

Limitations, regulations, etc. are infringements.

That is not, nor has it ever been, the legal meaning of infringement.

Besides, even Scalia, the patron saint of originalism, disagrees with you:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Do you need a permit to write and distribute a pamphlet; a blog in modern terms? Do you require a safety permit before holding a political or religious discussion on private property? Of course not.

Ridiculous strawman. When a pamplet can emit super-sonic projectiles and kill dozens of people within minutes then you'll have a valid point.

 

[boji]

"stick it in the urinal"

The pen has always been more bloody than the sword.

I've come full circle on the importance of mosaic law. Civilizations without an equivalent source of rules/precepts have either been lost to history or have weak economies. These laws are the source of the order and enlightened thinking which allow detractors/critics to voice themselves. We changed gold-backed money into fiat, and growing numbers demand we do the same to the Judicial. It won't end well.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The pen has always been more bloody than the sword.

I've come full circle on the importance of mosaic law. Civilizations without an equivalent source of rules/precepts have either been lost to history or have weak economies.

That's an interesting take on the importance of religion, that seems to be under widespread attack.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

That is not, nor has it ever been, the legal meaning of infringement.

Permitting requirement for purchasing any firearm at all is an infringement. What other right has such permitting requirements for even the most basic exercise thereof?

Besides, even Scalia, the patron saint of originalism, disagrees with you:

And I disagree with much of his twisted rationale which was based on terrible precedent going back to the NFA.

Ridiculous strawman.

No, it isn't. Name another enumerated right that requires government approval for it's basic exercise.

When a pamplet can emit super-sonic projectiles and kill dozens of people within minutes then you'll have a valid point.

Private ownership of deadly weapons is the final check on tyranny. It isn't my problem that you refuse to acknowledge the reality and purpose of the 2A. Wars are started by politicians and "leaders" with written words as often as by weapons. History. Learn from it.

 

[Gold]

I named several.



Limitations, regulations, etc. are infringements. You might notice that in the Bill of Rights no other enumerated right has the strong language "shall not be infringed."

I cant buy a Patriot missile battery or a nuclear weapon or a Howitzer. My right to bear arms is already being limited and infringed upon.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It's interesting to hear these golden oldie arguments repeating ad infinitum. Keep arguing, ignore the man behind the curtain.

JR