Lucky...

Huh? Messages? Did I miss something? Yea, you missd John thinking the concealed carry was a law today and not in a little over 90 days. So not really, nothing to see here.

Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session. So by that reasoning, I guess Obama's health care bill isn't law either, because it doesn't cover those 32 million new people until 2019. No, it is law, just that it phases in. You seem to have a double-standard: - A new gun law that begins in 90 days isn't really a law. - But a new health care law that begins in 9 years really is a law. I'll go back to ignoring your messages again, like I did before. - It actually begins in > 90 days - The HC law, all provisions take effect in way < 9 years I'm not super excited about the HC law, as it isn't comprehensive and it doesn't take effect for so long, hence if you call it a law, it's a worthless one for years as nothng takes effect, just like the concealed carry law, it doesn't take effect for 90 days from end of session. Brag of the signing of it, but don't act like it matters today. - Yes, that would be nice if you ignored my posts, that way I don't have to correct you so often and read you wiggling out.

The problem is the other option is to let corporations run things. How's that working out so far?

Here's a cool chart that rolls by time, showing law changes chronologically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Only if you quit skydiving and play more haeats instead. Akin to T.U.G.

Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session. So by that reasoning, I guess Obama's health care bill isn't law either, because it doesn't cover those 32 million new people until 2019. No, it is law, just that it phases in. Now kids can stay on the parent's policy until age 26 and other attributes of the law that are in effect now. The 30M uninsured won't become law until 2014. If it's not on the books and enforceable today, it isn't current law. Same with sunsetting laws. The BK law that took effect on October 17, 2005 was signed 6 months earlier, was it an active law at the signing? Nope, when it became active and enforceable then it became law, until then it was a signed bill that wasn't yet law. Here's an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States Arizona on April 16, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed legislation allowing for unrestricted carry in that state. The law will take effect 90 days after the end of the state's current legislative session, which will put the effective date in July or August 2010.[16] Signed into law- Not in effect yet So we can be semantic and say there is a law signed, but not effectuated, etc, etc... Truth is, CCW w/o a permit is not the current law, if I were to go out with a gun concealed and I don't have a CCW, then I can be charged with carrying w/o a permit. SO atthe end of teh day, is there an open concealed carry law for all non-fellons >21? Hardly. The law is signed and not in effect until late summer, hence no law yet.

Update: The governor signed the bill - it is now law! Story: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/16/20100416arizona-concealed-weapons-bill16-ON.html Actually not wholly, it will take effect 90 days from the end of this leg session.

List everythign Obama has spent money on. Remember, HC hasn't cost a dime yet.

Exactly, I've posted that sevral times, receipts are down which constitutes most of the debt increase; spending hasn't changed since GWB left office. As the reccovery carries on, I assume Obama will raise taxes via letting the tax cuts expire and hopefully spending will subside, esp military. Taxes are incredibly low since WWI. They've only been in the 20%'s twice: - in the 1920's leading to the Great Depression - as Reagan cut them to 28% in 1986 In the 30's only since GWB cut them back after Clinton raised them. I just don't get where these guys get their, "taxes are higher than ever" bullshit.

If the crooks don't KNOW about the law, how can they be deterred by it, Mr. Legal Genius? shh... he's too busy telling Texas cops how the law in Texas works. When really that's only up to the judge. No, I'm showing you guys data. I realize it works from the "diddy rule" but I like data. Here's the data, accept it, refute it or just keep saying nothing. Apparently the criminals haven't yet received the memo: http://www.prsearch.com/crime/texas/ They're 44 of 50, 1 being best. Texas Crime Statistics for 2005 With a total population of 22,859,958, Texas had a total crime index of 1,111,384 or 1 crime for every 20.57 people. Of which 10.90% (121,091) were of a violent nature while 89.10% (990,293) were crimes against property. SO MUCH FOR DETERRENCE.

So let me understand Belgian waffles. He wants us to understand this rigid guarantee that we can call whoever, whatever and it be protected absolutley. Then of course we have to ignore the unpredictable and usually pro-prosecutorial ways of juries, not to mention they are generally comprised of wholly laypeople who say, "fuck the law, it has it wrong here." Of course in order to believe Belgian we also have to believe the constitution is actually followed, espin lower courts. We must then ignore many cities and appellate courts for denying permits to spread hate of any kind in fear of civil unrest; they put civil order in front of a neck babbling on about their hate for certain people. So all the high courts that refuse permits agree with me, Belgian can't even address my post and yet he has it all figured out, even tho he is trumped by many appellate courts. Then quit watching and look up legal terms like, "jury Nullification" and that's only if the jury buys the horseshit of a defendant claiming he was running his mouth but wasn't trying to be intentionally disorderly. As a juror I would be offended if some assfuck tried to sell me that, as a judge I would just yawn. Here's the last post in case you want to actually address any of it: Right, if you ever bothered watching a jury work and the outcome you would realize they tend to side with the state. You and people who use your, "gotta prove me to a gnats ass to convict" will try to reason that shit out. Juries don't liek to lied to, to be played, so if you come in with, "I called him a nigger cause he was acting like one, I didn't mean to incite anything or be disorderly." They're gonna think, "Ya asshole, running that off certainly wouldn't cause an ugly situation, nawwww." Even if you think you had a case, jurors are laypeople and laypeople don't often bother with legal standards; they go from their guts. And if you can't figure where I'm going, look up Jury Nullification and you will get it. As for your fantasy of never knowing what a jury will do, obviously, but you can understand a probability by watching juries, talking to them, etc. There are no guarantees either way, the 95 jury acquitted a guilty OJ, the LV jury just convicted OJ on a set-up which he bought into with a jury that didn't even come close to passing constitutional muster. The court system isn't an exact science and tehy don't always follow the US Const, if you go around screaming, "nigger" and think the Const will protect you, you are truely not aware of the reality of the court system.

Then quit watching and look up legal terms like, "jury Nullification" and that's only if the jury buys the horseshit of a defendant claiming he was running his mouth but wasn't trying to be intentionally disorderly. As a juror I would be offended if some assfuck tried to sell me that, as a judge I would just yawn. Here's the last post in case you want to actually address any of it: Right, if you ever bothered watching a jury work and the outcome you would realize they tend to side with the state. You and people who use your, "gotta prove me to a gnats ass to convict" will try to reason that shit out. Juries don't liek to lied to, to be played, so if you come in with, "I called him a nigger cause he was acting like one, I didn't mean to incite anything or be disorderly." They're gonna think, "Ya asshole, running that off certainly wouldn't cause an ugly situation, nawwww." Even if you think you had a case, jurors are laypeople and laypeople don't often bother with legal standards; they go from their guts. And if you can't figure where I'm going, look up Jury Nullification and you will get it. As for your fantasy of never knowing what a jury will do, obviously, but you can understand a probability by watching juries, talking to them, etc. There are no guarantees either way, the 95 jury acquitted a guilty OJ, the LV jury just convicted OJ on a set-up which he bought into with a jury that didn't even come close to passing constitutional muster. The court system isn't an exact science and tehy don't always follow the US Const, if you go around screaming, "nigger" and think the Const will protect you, you are truely not aware of the reality of the court system.

Ok, I'll put the old one back. Or something similar. This any better? http://instantrimshot.com/ Yea, it's awesome

Key word there being "intent". Being the world famous legal expert you are you should know that and how hard it can be to prove intent. Being the forum layperson I will help. Intent = mens rea; virtually all criminal cases must have a culmination of mens rea and actus reaus, whether explicitly stated or not. Civil cases need only have actus reus. Again, you wanna go to the south side, find a run down BB court with a bunch of locals playing ball and say, "Hey, you niggers wanna get a job and quit living off my welfare" or some other brilliant neck passage? Now go before a jury and see how they view the intent. Or even a civil rights meet, go downtown and start yelling, "You fucking niggers just want everything for free" or some other tea bagger expression of freedom of speech and if a riot or even small disorder breaks out, see how that works in front of a jury. I could go on and list examples, but the key here is based upon ends justify the means, if nothing breaks out, you won't get the requisite police attention and might get away, but if a black person views this ignorance as unacceptable and decides to swing, it's basically on you. You provoked it - you own it; scream 1st all you want, the courts are here to set a tone to avoid LA riots and the like, fuck your Const rights. Think a jury would find any different? And in Nazizona you don't get a jury unless they are seeking time. BTW, intent is proven through the totality of circumstances, in most cases where the N-bomb is dropped with people of color present, there is an assumed intent perceived that observers should recognize it won't go over well. Either way, intent is an issue for a jury, so rots-a-ruck with that one. As you said, it is an issue for a jury. Which makes your entire argument and issue for a jury. Which mean your acting like you know what the outcome would be is, as usual, a bunch of BS. When you get a REAL law degree, then we will listen. Right, if you ever bothered watching a jury work and the outcome you would realize they tend to side with the state. You and people who use your, "gotta prove me to a gnats ass to convict" will try to reason that shit out. Juries don't liek to lied to, to be played, so if you come in with, "I called him a nigger cause he was acting like one, I didn't mean to incite anything or be disorderly." They're gonna think, "Ya asshole, running that off certainly wouldn't cause an ugly situation, nawwww." Even if you think you had a case, jurors are laypeople and laypeople don't often bother with legal standards; they go from their guts. And if you can't figure where I'm going, look up Jury Nullification and you will get it. As for your fantasy of never knowing what a jury will do, obviously, but you can understand a probability by watching juries, talking to them, etc. There are no guarantees either way, the 95 jury acquitted a guilty OJ, the LV jury just convicted OJ on a set-up which he bought into with a jury that didn't even come close to passing constitutional muster. The court system isn't an exact science and tehy don't always follow the US Const, if you go around screaming, "nigger" and think the Const will protect you, you are truely not aware of the reality of the court system.

If the crooks don't KNOW about the law, how can they be deterred by it, Mr. Legal Genius? The deterrence I was referring to, can't believe you missed it, was the shooting in the back part. Word gets around about that kind of shit; remember, that was the point I was addressing that another poster claimed would cut down on robberies/burglaries? It's a lot easier to address the issues if you *try* to stick to the issues as presented.

Ya, dropping the N-bomb unabridged is more important than keeping the streets safe. Oh, which did I give license too and which did I require suppression? Both are irresponsible and can lead to injury and death, if you want to semantically split them into tiny %'s to make a point, have fun. I see teh high courts usually side with me.

This one is akin to Bob Hope telling us his arms are tired as he just flew in.

Key word there being "intent". Being the world famous legal expert you are you should know that and how hard it can be to prove intent. Being the forum layperson I will help. Intent = mens rea; virtually all criminal cases must have a culmination of mens rea and actus reaus, whether explicitly stated or not. Civil cases need only have actus reus. Again, you wanna go to the south side, find a run down BB court with a bunch of locals playing ball and say, "Hey, you niggers wanna get a job and quit living off my welfare" or some other brilliant neck passage? Now go before a jury and see how they view the intent. Or even a civil rights meet, go downtown and start yelling, "You fucking niggers just want everything for free" or some other tea bagger expression of freedom of speech and if a riot or even small disorder breaks out, see how that works in front of a jury. I could go on and list examples, but the key here is based upon ends justify the means, if nothing breaks out, you won't get the requisite police attention and might get away, but if a black person views this ignorance as unacceptable and decides to swing, it's basically on you. You provoked it - you own it; scream 1st all you want, the courts are here to set a tone to avoid LA riots and the like, fuck your Const rights. Think a jury would find any different? And in Nazizona you don't get a jury unless they are seeking time. BTW, intent is proven through the totality of circumstances, in most cases where the N-bomb is dropped with people of color present, there is an assumed intent perceived that observers should recognize it won't go over well. Either way, intent is an issue for a jury, so rots-a-ruck with that one.

It's not something the criminals are generally aware of, and it's not something that happens on anything approaching a regular basis, either. If you bothered to post the entire string of posts, you would discover I replied to this: If ALL states had such laws, we would see practicallly an end to break ins! Texas is virtually the worst in crime and most are property crimes (90%), so the thought that shooting people in the backs as they run off with your TV creating this dellusion of deterrence is just that; a dellusion. Try to post things in context, they seem so much more relevant. Again I say: SO MUCH FOR DETERRENCE

Talking about this tough guy? Was in our TV yesterday. Man, that's one genuine iron fist http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Sheriff_Bio Tell him something about *free speech* of drivers which have been pulled over - Jeez! One wrong answer: Hand cuffs! A wrong view: Jail. All a subject of interpretation, methinks Sheriff Joke (Joe). He's prolly gonna resign and run for gov. Just as County Attny Andrew Thomas just resigned and is allegedly running for State AG. The deal with these guys is that they are under FEDERAL investigation for a shitload of things and I think they are gracefully backing away and will not run for other offices. These guys actually went after a Superior Ct judge after a detention officer was cought in film looking thru a defendant's file that was on his attny's stuff. They made copies of it too. Kinda shits all over the client confidentiality thingy. Anyway the dipshit Det Officer was contempted by Judge Donahoe and told to publicly apologize to the lawyer, he refused so Donahoe sent him to jail on contempt. Of course the Sheriff just sat him in an office and no one knew the whereabouts of the young idiot. So then the appellate ct upheld the contempt and threw out anymore jail. Then Arpaio started going after Donahoe and friends personally, trying to dig shit up and air it. This is just what stirred the mess and now they're running from office, not for office - hoping it goes away.

Like many states, it sure has its own unique character; but as far as I know (and I invite correction), it's the only state where a civilian is allowed to back-shoot a criminal suspect, even if he's unarmed, when he is in the process of running away from committing a strictly property crime. (While I don't approve, it's not really a bash; more of a clinical observation.) If ALL states had such laws, we would see practicallly an end to break ins! Apparently the criminals haven't yet received the memo: http://www.prsearch.com/crime/texas/ They're 44 of 50, 1 being best. Texas Crime Statistics for 2005 With a total population of 22,859,958, Texas had a total crime index of 1,111,384 or 1 crime for every 20.57 people. Of which 10.90% (121,091) were of a violent nature while 89.10% (990,293) were crimes against property. SO MUCH FOR DETERRENCE.

That's illegal in Texas, if there is someone with in ear shot whom may be offended. Then that portion of the Texas statute, and/or manner of enforcing it, is unconstitutional. It has stood up in court previously. You have access, check Lexus-Nexus and look at the case law. The reason why is due to the language of the statute in regards to a breach of the peace. Now, what you may disagree as to what constitutes a breach of the peace, but there is a bit of case law backing the statute up. That doesn't mean that tomorrow a new case will get kicked all the way up through the court system that then disallows the statute as written, though. Here's the statute so you can see the language and make your own choice. Many times the alleged offender must create disorder to another person, a cop cannot be the offended. For example, at 2am on a Fri night years ago I was awakened by an asshole in my apt complex who was honking and being a dick, I opened the door and looked out and then one the of the cops that was stationed in an apt overhead pulled up and saw this. I was about to go inseide when she asked me if I was bothewred, I replied that I'm ok. She asked me if I would be the complainant as she cannot be, the peace must be disturbed and a person other than a gov official be disturbed by it. So this is why disorderly conduct charges must have a victim, a gov official cannot be a victim in these cases.

Rather the laws permit great degrees of freedom; there is a difference. I doubt there are laws that specifically state you can flip cops off and the sort, it's the enforcement and the state courts, trial and appellate that interpret the COnst in a way that yields to it.

That's illegal in Texas, if there is someone with in ear shot whom may be offended. The cop doesn't count, though. Disorderly Conduct: language. Example: Saying it at a biker bar in conversation? Not really an offense. Example 2: Screaming it in the middle of a city council meeting? Probably an offense. An offense of the order of that meeting, likely not of state law. Just as in court, say it in court in a disruptive way and it's contempt, not a different crime most likely.

*crickets*