However, you are very smart to have it. Never know when may need to kill snakes and such. Or a Higgins.

I only use "Mexican carry" when I'm walking the dog on our semi rural road, never when I'm in "public".

Would you please send me the number of the law on the Texas code that requires all off duty police officers to carry fire arms 24/7. In a quick search of Texas laws on the internet I found several examples of the statement that off duty officers have the right to carry concealed weapons at any time. I found no example of this being a requirement.

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

I have noted you frequently refer to research of the internet and Wikipedia in particular. I have found these sources to be unreliable, especially Wikipedia. I have found too many instances where different articles in each contradict others of the same subject. In areas where I was aware of the facts in many instances being reported, what I saw reported was not accurate. In some areas the differences were of no real significance and others quite the contrary.

Back in the late 80‘s when in the computer consulting business one of my customers was in the polling business. When employed to do a poll for a customer, the customer was asked what the results were that the customer wanted. They explained the wording of the questions and the surrounding questions could be designed to obtain any results the customer wanted. The statement of “the results are within plus or minus 4 % “ or such are completely meaningless.
Any poll conducted by or for the following should be completely ignored:
Washington Post
New York Times
Houston Chronicle
Any member of congress
ABC News
CBS News
NBC News
Any spokesman for the Democratic Party
Any spokesman for the Republican Party

Other than that, you must use your own judgment of credibility.

The Internet and Wikipedia are like any other reference source. You have to consider the source. When the source is the offical website of the State of Texas then I would hope it would be reliable. With Wikipedia you will notice that usually the sources are listed at the end of the article, making further research quite easy. Surely someone in your family with a background in law inforcement can come up with the number of the Texas gun law statute in question.

It's interesting that your list contained some of the finest news orginazations in our country but failed to list Fox news. Am I to assume they are believable?

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

Cactus,
OHMYGAWD, I left out Fox news. Sorry for the oversight! I am an old fart that thinks of the news networks as ABC, NBC and CBS and forget to add FOX. I do not consider CNN a news organization, just an advertising medium for the Democrats.
Most of their “news” stories contain statements of fact that are just opinion and also not true. Watch for them and you will see them as well.

I agree that CNN is somewhat tilted toward the Democrats in their reporting. As for Fox, Rupert and his boys are down right apologist for Republicans. IMHO.

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

I'm sure that you are proud of the Great State of Texas, most of us are proud of where we call home. But don't over do it. Almost everything that I read on the Internet about the Constitution of Texas says that it's a mess. In fact the Texas Constitution has been re-written four times. There is an ongoing move to completely rewrite it still again. The last attempt at this was in 1997 and failed but there is still a movement to attempt it again. The Federal Constitution has been Ammended 27 times, the one in Texas over 400. To quote from the Texas Library and Archives Commission, "Because of it's tight restrictions, it has been ammended hundreds of times and is now considered to be one of the most confusing and disorganized of all State Constitutions."

Changes in the U.S. Constitution are not made randomly by anyone, least of all Judges. Any changes to the Constitution must be ratified by Congress by a 2/3 margin and ratified by the 3/4 of the states.

Laws are passed by State and Federal Legislatures. It is the responsibility of the courts to enforce these laws withing the paramiters of the Constitution. You speak of the Miranda ruling. This is a ruling by the Supreme Court that anyone arrested must be informed of their Constitutional right to an Attorney and their Constitutional right against Self in-crimination. The laws were already in the Constitution. The Judges of the Supreme Court simply enforced them.

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

Tennessee Dave (TD)

I have spent many, many hours in courtrooms observing trials. Most of these trials will have several conferences where the lawyers will debate some issue out of hearing of the jury. These discussions are always about the changes in law by some judge rather discussing the wording or meaning of the constitution or the statutes passed by congress. With the exception of the City of Houston misdemeanor court, I have never heard a reference to any of the laws passed by the federal or state legislatures.

I would expect the writers of things on the internet to try to belittle the Texas Constitution. They usually have tried to get it modified and failed. I consider this the strength rather than a weakness.
If the Miranda law was proposed as an amendment to the US constitution, and it should be passed by congress, I suspect it would not be approved by ANY state much less than 2.3rds.

Sorry my friend but my bubble is still very much in tact. The U.S. Constitution has been ammendended 27 times, like I told you before, certainly not the the thousands of times like you say. I've got a copy right here, 27 ammendments. End of story.

Every law that is passed is not written into the Constitution for heaven's sake. The purpose of the courts are to enforce laws within the paramiters set down by the Constitution. That's what is so great about his beautiful document. It's not cluttered up by trying to micro-manage the people. It simply sets down the tenets by which the government will be enact it's laws, run it's business and guarntees the civil rights of the citizens. It is the job of the judicial branch to ensure that the laws which are passed fit within the paramiters of the Constitution.

The Miranda ruling by the Supreme court doesn't have to be put into the constitution. It's already there. All that Miranda does is require police officers to advise a suspect of his CONSTITUTIONAL rights against self incrimination, which is stated in the Fifth Ammendment and his right of counsel, which is stated in the sixth.

As for comparing it to Texas Constitution you may think how you want my friend, but it's obvious that most of the rest of the world sees it differently. Let me quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica. "The Constitution of the United States of America, the fundemental law of the U.S. federal system of government and a landmark document of the Western World. The oldest national Constitution in use, the Constitution defines the principle organs of government and their juristictions and the basic rights of the citizens.

In more than two centuries of operation the Constitution has proved itself a dynamic document. It has served as a model for other countries, it's provisions are widely immitated in national constitutions around the world. Although the Constitution's brevity and ambiguity have sometimes led to serious disputes of it's meaning, they also have made it adaptable to changing historical circumstances and ensured it's relevance in ages far removed from the one in which it was written."

And so you may brag about the Texas Constitution if you like. As for me, I think I'll agree with what I read about it in several Encyclopedias, and other atricles I've read on the internet, one being from Texas' on Library assn. which I quoted before. It's a mess. WADR

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

It is the job of the Judicial Branch to try cases. This trial must be based on the constitution, laws passed by congress, and the facts and witnesses brought forth in the trial. The Supreme Court does have some control over the laws passed by congress. They can void a law passed by congress as being unconstitutional.

What they do not have the right to do is change the laws or modify the constitution all by themselves as part of the decision of some case.

Yes, I am proud of the Constitution of the State of Texas and think how fortunate is that it does not matter at all what other people in the world thinks of it.
If we Texans do not like something in it or wish to add something to it, we can and do.

"The US Constitution has been ammended thousands of times by judges...." Your words, not mine. That was last week, now it's "modified" instead of ammended. You were wrong, my friend, admit it.

The Supreme Court certainly does have the right to interpret the Constitution and that's what they did with the Miranda ruling. It's what is called a prophylactic ruling. Some of these ruling are controversial but unless the court reverses it's own ruling. It's the law.

I really don't understand what you have against making sure that someone knows his Constitutional rights. That is the reason for the Constitution in the first place, to grant these rights to the people. I personally cannot imagine why anyone in law inforcement would want it any other way. After all, don't they do take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution? That's what they should do, not try to get around it.

As for your Texas state Constitution, you can feel any way that you want about it.
It's when you state that's it's superior to the federal and most other state Constitutions, and then can offer no proof or support for such a statement, that I start to chuckle.

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"

I have no problem of citizens to know their constitutional rights. Police should have no need to “go around” these rights.

I will give you an example of what is wrong with the Miranda amendment to the constitution.
Several years ago a USPS delivery person delivering registered mail was reported missing. The Houston police started searching for the missing woman. One pair of officers took the list of deliveries she was making and started checking with each person receiving mail. Each person they contacted reported she had delivered their mail and went on her way. The idea was to find where she made the last delivery and where the next place she had not made the delivery. This way they would know where to concentrate their search. After covering about half the deliveries, they went to the next place on the list. A young man in his early 20’s answered the door. He was asked if the postal worker had been there and he told them he had a right to an attorney and would say nothing without one. The officers told his that was his right and they would contact his lawyer or would provide one for him if he did not already have one. He asked to be provided a lawyer. They called the dispatcher to have a lawyer to meet them at the station. They started transporting him to the station. They asked him no further questions, just drove in silence. Before they reached the station, he broke down and said he had killed her. He said she made such a fuss while he was raping her, he had to kill her. He told the officers where he dumped the body and where he dumped the gun.
The officers called other units to check these locations and found the body and the gun.
The gun had been purchased by the man’s father and had the man’s fingerprints on the gun. Bullets fired from the gum matched the bullet taken from the body.
He was charged with rape and murder but prior to the trial, it was judged the officers failed to go through the Miranda list before he made his unsolicited statement. The judge ruled that under Marinda the confession could not be used as evidence. Further, any evidence gathered from these statements could also not be used. None of the evidence from the body or the gun could be used. They could not even state that a murder had been committed. The man had to be released and not even tried.

This is a travesty, not justice!

We have different opinions of what makes a good constitution which is perfectly OK from my viewpoint.

The Supreme Court or any other court does not ammend the constitution, neither does it modify it or change it in any way. The courts "interpret" the Constitution, and when this is done, it's the law. If you don't like it, fight to change the law but don't try to twist it into something that it isn't.

"I have no problem of citizens to know their Constitutional rights. Police should have no need to "go around" these right. Just exactly what are you saying here? That it's ok for police to circumvent the rights of citizens?

As for your story. You are right, if it happened as you told it, it's a travesty. If only the cops has told him that anything he said could and would be used against him as well at the same time they told him that they would supply him with a lawyer, there would be no problem. It's not as if they don't know the law. It looks to me like you are tying to blame the incompetance of a couple of police officers on the Constitution. Police misconduct was a factor in 37 of the first 74 cases that were overturned by DNA evidence in this country. In almost 25% percent of the overturned cases, the suspect had confessed. Some of the reasons for this are coercion, duress, threats of a harsh sentence, ignorance of the law, fear of physical violence. Each one of these reasons may be attributed to law enforcement. These figures come from the Innocence Project and it makes it pretty obvious that there are lots of cops out there that aren't doing their jobs right.

I believe that every criminal should be punished for his crime. But I also believe that no innocent person should ever be punished for a crime he didn't commit. So when the cops don't get it right, blame the cops, not the consititution.

"Men usually believe if only they hear words, that there must also be some sort of meaning." -Mephisto, in Goethe's "Faust"