Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Texas!
12-05-2014, 11:51 AM,
#1
Texas!
***
Posts: 794
Threads: 142
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 0
#1
Interesting and short article about a bill to prevent enforcement of Federal gun laws in Texas.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/12/03/will-fede...-in-texas/

Texas has some ideas that I don't agree with, but in this case, it will be interesting to see what they end up passing.

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/12/03/will-fede...-in-texas/

Texas has some ideas that I don't agree with, but in this case, it will be interesting to see what they end up passing.
Reply
Find
Reply
12-05-2014, 03:17 PM,
#2
RE: Texas!
***
Posts: 2,268
Threads: 207
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 0
#2
Oh I like this.....I love the last paragraph

With a sweeping Republican victory throughout the country in the November midterms, it seems clear that legislators are working with a mandate to drive America towards conservatism and if Texas can strengthen state sovereignty and send a message that anti-Second Amendment laws will be rendered null and void in states that abide by the Constitution, it’s likely that other states will follow suit.

With a sweeping Republican victory throughout the country in the November midterms, it seems clear that legislators are working with a mandate to drive America towards conservatism and if Texas can strengthen state sovereignty and send a message that anti-Second Amendment laws will be rendered null and void in states that abide by the Constitution, it’s likely that other states will follow suit.
Reply
Find
Reply
12-05-2014, 06:15 PM,
#3
RE: Texas!
***
Posts: 1,110
Threads: 82
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 3
#3
They can withhold state resources from enforcing the Federal laws but the Federal laws would still be law and enforceable by Federal agents in those states. States cannot nullify Federal laws. That would not be abiding by the Constitution.
Reply
Find
Reply
12-05-2014, 07:07 PM,
#4
RE: Texas!
***
Posts: 2,268
Threads: 207
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 0
#4
Not really. The constitution says, this is what the Feds can or can't do. The 10th amendment says the rest goes to the states. The second is pretty simple....

"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."

There is VERY little I agree with Obama, but he was correct when is said the that constitutions is charter of negative liberties. It's designed to stop the government. Obama on radio

The federal government has taken it's role WAY beyond the intended purpose. The only way this monster will stop is by the states pushing back....GO TEXAS GO.

For example, this one issue will become very interesting to debate; guns and pot. We now have several states that have legalized it for recreational use, and we, here in Illinois for medical use. At my last meeting with an ATF agent, I asked what i do for someone that is legal to purchase medical marijuana. They told me that anybody that had a medicinal card was to be consider and addict, and would not be able to properly be approved for a 4473 form.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say....the people of the united states of America can't smoke pot. Therefore, if it's not in there, it's left to the states to decide.

Stay tuned, this issue is not going away, and I think it will be challenged in the supreme court soon, and the Feds will loose.

That's my 2 cents on steroids, making it a whole dime. Smile

"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."

There is VERY little I agree with Obama, but he was correct when is said the that constitutions is charter of negative liberties. It's designed to stop the government. Obama on radio

The federal government has taken it's role WAY beyond the intended purpose. The only way this monster will stop is by the states pushing back....GO TEXAS GO.

For example, this one issue will become very interesting to debate; guns and pot. We now have several states that have legalized it for recreational use, and we, here in Illinois for medical use. At my last meeting with an ATF agent, I asked what i do for someone that is legal to purchase medical marijuana. They told me that anybody that had a medicinal card was to be consider and addict, and would not be able to properly be approved for a 4473 form.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say....the people of the united states of America can't smoke pot. Therefore, if it's not in there, it's left to the states to decide.

Stay tuned, this issue is not going away, and I think it will be challenged in the supreme court soon, and the Feds will loose.

That's my 2 cents on steroids, making it a whole dime. Smile
Reply
Find
Reply
12-05-2014, 08:04 PM,
#5
RE: Texas!
***
Posts: 1,110
Threads: 82
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 3
#5
It has been before the Supreme Court, repeatedly for over 200 years. Remember when the Southern states fought desegregation? This was their argument. The Supreme Court has consistently held from the time of the Founders that the only entity that can void a Federal law is the Federal Courts or Congress. States can sue in Federal Court to challenge a law's constitutionality. They can also choose not to enforce the law, which is the situation with pot and how your example actually proves my point. The states say it is legal and the Federal government does not but the states are basically saying it is up to the Federal government to enforce and they will not. If you remember back to the early years of G W Bush's administration Ashcroft's Justice Department used to bust the medicinal marijuana dispensaries in the states that allowed.

If you read the actual wording of the proposal and not his rhetoric you see it talks about not helping the Federal government enforce Federal laws, which is considered Constitutional.

If you read the actual wording of the proposal and not his rhetoric you see it talks about not helping the Federal government enforce Federal laws, which is considered Constitutional.
Reply
Find
Reply
12-05-2014, 10:43 PM,
#6
RE: Texas!
***
Posts: 2,216
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 8
#6
Federal law can be enforced in the states by Federal officers. State officials and local law enforcement are free to ignore it and leave it for Federal officials to handle. There is a lot to be said for returning to the old system. Let the Federal government enforce their laws and states and local police enforce state and local laws.

Right now the Federal government is insisting that it should be the sole enforcer of immigration laws. Local and state police should ignore all requests for backup or officers to aid in enforcement of federal laws, period.

For instance, states should ignore all the provisions of Obamacare. Let the FED's enforce it. Citizens should just refuse to participate in Obamacare and wait for the FEDS to arrest them.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper

Right now the Federal government is insisting that it should be the sole enforcer of immigration laws. Local and state police should ignore all requests for backup or officers to aid in enforcement of federal laws, period.

For instance, states should ignore all the provisions of Obamacare. Let the FED's enforce it. Citizens should just refuse to participate in Obamacare and wait for the FEDS to arrest them.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Col. Jeff Cooper
Reply
Find
Reply
12-06-2014, 02:25 PM,
#7
RE: Texas!
***
Posts: 958
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 1
#7
Thanks for sharing.
Click Here ~~~~>Glock Often Imitated....Never Duplicated
Click Here ~~~~>Glock Often Imitated....Never Duplicated
Reply
Find
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Red Dot Arms Forum | Return to Top | | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication