Does Texas Have What It Takes To Do This?

[EastTexasRancher]

http://tucson.com/news/local/lawmaker-s ... 150e9.html

[SewTexas]

...they were working on something like this last session, I think? I think it was in the pile that got sidelined by Stickland and his gang's antics.
(Honestly, I do understand most of where they are coming from, but some good bills fell apart because of them)

[Keith B]

Will be hard to get past the full legislature, much less the Governor. Missouri tried to pass a similar bill a few years ago. The Governor vetoed it and the legislature failed to override his veto.

[EastTexasRancher]

That would be great. Maybe someone here knows.

[anygunanywhere]

Maybe. If we get a decent Speaker of the House to replace Strauss.

[bblhd672]

Maybe. If we get a decent Speaker of the House to replace Strauss.

And idiots doing idiotic things don’t cause us to expend political capital overcoming their idiocy.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I use adblocker and can't read the article. What was the subject?

Chas.

[PBR]

PHOENIX — A Prescott lawmaker is proposing changes in state law designed to protect the right of Arizonans to keep their firearms no matter what a future Congress decides.

But the attorney who crafted it for Republican state Rep. David Stringer said that still won’t let Arizonans keep their “bump stocks” if the federal government declares them illegal.

HB 2057 seeks to do just that.

[srothstein]

Laws like this are very good for pleasing the constituency, but have very little bearing on real life. It might be able to provide some assistance, but a well known fact is that federal law overrides state laws, including those in state constitutions. If the feds pass a law banning AR-15s, no state law or constitution will overrule it.

I do like the idea and think it might be some help in a court case, but I would not place much faith in it. My only hope would be that enough states do it that the feds reconsider passing any laws.

I would suggest that the law copy federal law, sort of, and split the militia definition into a formal and informal militia. It would define the formal state militia as the state guard and national guard with their current membership rules. Then we could have an informal militia that is all willing adults in the state, who have weapons and ammo. While I am not sure I like the idea, I could see how it would help in a court case if the informal militia were required to register their membership with the state and maybe have a one day per year muster where they should show up. I am sure a good lawyer could work this out better than I can and come up with a regulation that would strengthen a court argument that the person is in the informal militia and that it is a well-regulated militia that works int he traditional sense of being citizens who show up when needed.

[Oldgringo]

Of the 7,943 things/places on my Bucket List, 'bump stocks' for my two (2) AR-15's, comes in at about 8,327. Sorry, am I missing something in my dotage?

[srothstein]

Of the 7,943 things/places on my Bucket List, 'bump stocks' for my two (2) AR-15's, comes in at about 8,327. Sorry, am I missing something in my dotage?

I think the intent of this concept is about much more than bump stocks. The hope (and the original article) is that it covers other weapons such as AR-15 style rifles, standard capacity magazines, and ammunition limits.

If they define the weapons for the militia correctly, they can name anything and include statements about any weapon issued to any military in the world. ARs and AKs then become much harder to ban.

[Oldgringo]

Of the 7,943 things/places on my Bucket List, 'bump stocks' for my two (2) AR-15's, comes in at about 8,327. Sorry, am I missing something in my dotage?

I think the intent of this concept is about much more than bump stocks. The hope (and the original article) is that it covers other weapons such as AR-15 style rifles, standard capacity magazines, and ammunition limits.

If they define the weapons for the militia correctly, they can name anything and include statements about any weapon issued to any military in the world. ARs and AKs then become much harder to ban.

I'm afraid you are correct. Bump stocks are just the beginning. I have four 30 round magazines and am yet to load any of them. As for the so-called 'bump stock', I don't see the point in wasting ammo at an accelerated rate.

[Pawpaw]

Of the 7,943 things/places on my Bucket List, 'bump stocks' for my two (2) AR-15's, comes in at about 8,327. Sorry, am I missing something in my dotage?

I think the intent of this concept is about much more than bump stocks. The hope (and the original article) is that it covers other weapons such as AR-15 style rifles, standard capacity magazines, and ammunition limits.

If they define the weapons for the militia correctly, they can name anything and include statements about any weapon issued to any military in the world. ARs and AKs then become much harder to ban.

I'm afraid you are correct. Bump stocks are just the beginning. I have four 30 round magazines and am yet to load any of them. As for the so-called 'bump stock', I don't see the point in wasting ammo at an accelerated rate.

I believe the majority of forum members agree with you on that (including me). However, there is a very serious principle involved.

[spectre]

Laws like this are very good for pleasing the constituency, but have very little bearing on real life.

They're "feel good" laws calculated to get votes without accomplishing anything worthwhile.

Look at the effect of the "fines for signs" law in Texas, which seems more like "signs are fine" in real life.

[TexasCajun]

Since federal law generally supersedes state law (especially with respect to firearms), I'd rather see our legislature spend the limited time and finite political capital to get something more worthwhile passed - like putting real teeth into fines for signs and LTC-everywhere.