Texas has it's own referendums regarding it's militia, both organized and unorganized. They read similarly though.
Can you post the Texas code for militia with that? I thought I remember reading something about non-state regulated groups that have paramilitary functions were illegal by state law. Would be great to read otherwise.
431.010. Organization Prohibited
[FONT=&](a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
[/FONT][FONT=&]Now, what about that Section 431.010 prohibiting military companies or organizations or parades within municipalities? It clearly expresses hostility to independent local militias within municipalities, but it has no penalties, and does not apply to rural areas. It's main intent seems to be to discourage local officials from calling up the militia.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The only statutes which local officials might invoke against a militia muster within a municipality would be those against exhibiting a firearm in a way that "alarms" the public. However, centuries of common law makes it clear that merely carrying firearms is not to be considered "alarming". The arms must actually be brandished toward someone in a threatening manner. This would not prevent arrests on this ground, of course, but successful prosecution is unlikely if the courts follow the law and the Constitution.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Some of these points are more fully discussed in 29 Tex. Jur., Sections 4 and 5, and in 12 Tex. Jur. 3d., Sections 12-28.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Present U.S. and Texas law clearly fail to implement the requirements for organizing and training the Militia established by the Framers. However, we must also recognize that this failure goes all the way back to 1792, and that such organizing and training are, therefore, left to the people themselves, in the form of independent local militias, which they have a constitutional duty to maintain in a high state of preparedness, even if they get little support from the authorities, and indeed, especially if they get opposition from the authorities.[/FONT]
satx78247, I'd like to read (first hand) some of those Supreme Court decisions you cite. Do you have a convenient source (or link) to any of them? (Or a synopsis page providing a brief of those concepts you say the SCOTUS has already traditionally ruled on?).
Younggun,
While you are FREE to hold ANY opinion (including that the Earth is FLAT and/or that "little green men from Mars" are walking about in your neighborhood), The US Supreme Court has held that any commercial enterprise is a PUBLIC ACCOMODATION & therefore such places may NOT lawfully discriminate against gun-owners or anyone else. = That is FACT & facts are in every case superior to unsupported opinions.
Further, the SCOTUS as held for over TWO CENTURIES that commercial property owners are RESPONSIBLE under civil law to protect "invitees" (An invitee is any person who is on the premises of a commercial property for any otherwise lawful reason.) from "all hazards", including criminal acts, "which may be reasonably be foreseen as potential & present hazards".
yours, satx
busykngt; zincwarrior,
SORRY "Zinc" but I'm "conflating" nothing at all. = The SCOTUS case was decided in the early 19th Century, when a criminal entered the premises of a blacksmith shop, assaulted one of the customers with a rock & severely injured the customer. The customer then sued the blacksmith & the SCOTUS found upon appeal that the blacksmith had failed in his duty to protect his customer from criminal acts, while the customer was on the owner's premises.
(That seemingly quite minor case became one of the basic judicial precedents on the responsibilities of commercial enterprises toward their customers.)
As I'm now retired & have no access to the post law library, I cannot give you a case citation BUT can tell you which book to look for in most a major law library= THE CENTURY published by Lexus-Nexis Publishing.
In my opinion, once the SCOTUS is safely back in the hands of "Constitution-affirming jurists, ONE of the first cases that is heard should be a case that affirms, once & for all, that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDAL RIGHT, which is just as fundamental to LIBERTY as Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion and which STRIKES DOWN all of the so-called "Gun-control laws", from coast to cast, which infest our nation.
yours, satx
Please give me a case cite to support your statement.
busykngt; zincwarrior,
SORRY "Zinc" but I'm "conflating" nothing at all. = The SCOTUS case was decided in the early 19th Century, when a criminal entered the premises of a blacksmith shop, assaulted one of the customers with a rock & severely injured the customer. The customer then sued the blacksmith & the SCOTUS found upon appeal that the blacksmith had failed in his duty to protect his customer from criminal acts, while the customer was on the owner's premises.
(That seemingly quite minor case became one of the basic judicial precedents on the responsibilities of commercial enterprises toward their customers.)
As I'm now retired & have NO current access to the post law library, I cannot give you a case citation BUT can tell you which book to look for in most any major law library= THE CENTURY published by Lexus-Nexis Publishing.
In my opinion, once the SCOTUS is safely back in the hands of "Constitution-affirming jurists, ONE of the first cases that is heard should be a case that affirms, once & for all, that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDAL RIGHT, which is just as fundamental to LIBERTY as Freedom of Speech/Press/Religion and which STRIKES DOWN all of the so-called "Gun-control laws", from coast to cast, which infest our nation.
yours, satx
zincwarrior,
Tell me, YES or NO, (stripped of your usual nonsense,) did you UNDERSTAND my comment # 49 about NOT having current access to a law library??
(Should I use shorter sentences and/or words of only 1 or 2 syllables, so that you will "get" what I wrote??)
I even noted WHICH law book that you can find the case citation in.
yours, satx
txinvestigator,
,
SCOTUS has heard civil appeals since the first decades of the American Republic. = Surely you've heard of MARBURY v. MADISON and/or any number of the railroad cases, the "slaughterhouse" cases (that precipitated The Pure Food & Drug Acts by the Congress) & many other civil cases that were decided upon appeal by the SCOTUS.
(Face facts, you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT".)
yours, satx