TexasCHLforum.com

It would be nice to see our legislators take up something similar to Montana. It spells out that if items (firearms, firearms accessories, ammo) are manufactured in Montana and remain in Montana they are not under federal regulation via the federal expansion of the interstate commerce clause which the feds uses to regulate firearm. This type of legislation could come in handy if the current administration attempts to regulate firearms, ammunition, and/or increase taxes on both.

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's a link to another forum thread regarding this plus a news write up about it.

http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum/to ... C_ID=10468" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Heck, I'd love to see Texas go a step further, and pass "medical marijuana" like laws for firearms. Basically laws that go against the constitution, stating that the state won't prosecute people.

It's a pipe dream, I know...

nitrogen wrote:It's a pipe dream, I know...

You never know.

Texas should do this and include both guns and bibles to really drive home the unconstitutional reach.

NH house resolution 6 is good stuff as well Basically if the federal government does any of this the united states is over due to the disregarding of constitutional limitations. Of course they did that long ago, but better late then never i guess.

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition

I support every one of these listed above & some more too.
Been saying it for a long time. One thing no one is stating if they have even thought about it is when the states pass these laws, "Bo-namma & company" will start withholding Federal funds. My guess is first will be highway. That will cause a fuss. Next education. Not only mad teachers but problems to work out. People will need to be ready to do on less. A LOT less.
I am not the political sharp thinker that many on this board are. That is the reason I stay out of the political forums here. Are you willing to give up medicare when they hold that. (social medicine too.)
What about when the More Govt. know it alls decide to stop "SOCIAL" Security to the "States in Rebellion".
They cant do that.
Sure they can. An executive order to that effect would be obeyed immediately by other big govt lazy leeches. Just dont mail the checks to any resident of a state that is in rebellion & let the people jump on the Governor & legislatures

I have been ready for a LOOOONG time. A lot are not.
Many in our borders want to do what they want to do & NoBamma & company stay away but still send the money w/ no strings attatched. No Socialism except the part we already have & that I want
My 02cents & some think it worth half that.

longtooth, all of those things you say the Feds will withhold from states if states enact these types of laws are in violation of the 10th Amendment anyway. That's where we have to be ready to put our money where our mouth is. It is hard to take anyone seriously when they say "we want a return to the Constitutional principles" on the one hand, then turn around and complain that the gov't is going to stop handing out money that is in violation of the 10th Amendment.

For the most part, States are fair-weather friends with the Constitution. As long as the Constitution can be used to enforce our freedoms and states' rights, then it's great. But as soon as the Constitution is used to cut off funds, then all bets are off.

Interesting. I cannot recall in my lifetime ever seeing open debate on the possibility of insurrection.
That was the topic on KLIF this morning on the way in. Most of the callers were in favor of a drastic change in the way business is done, and concerned about the reach of the Federal Govt.

I wonder what the people in Washington - the 2nd tier people who really do the thinking and form policy - really think about the recent run on handguns and black rifles?

mr.72 wrote:longtooth, all of those things you say the Feds will withhold from states if states enact these types of laws are in violation of the 10th Amendment anyway. That's where we have to be ready to put our money where our mouth is. It is hard to take anyone seriously when they say "we want a return to the Constitutional principles" on the one hand, then turn around and complain that the gov't is going to stop handing out money that is in violation of the 10th Amendment.

For the most part, States are fair-weather friends with the Constitution. As long as the Constitution can be used to enforce our freedoms and states' rights, then it's great. But as soon as the Constitution is used to cut off funds, then all bets are off.

You are so right. and people dont realize it. They have slowly accepted the Social handouts & gotten used to them & only want big Bro to stay out of what they want him out of.
Especially medecine. O, BTW, gotta go to the hospital to visit sick folks.