TexasCHLforum.com

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyoming-l ... PBYGG_gBcw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure eventually the Pony Express rider will make it to Wyoming with a copy of the Constitution so they can read for themselves that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

Charles,any chance we can get this done during this Legislative Session in Texas?

If so, I recommend 10 years in Prison and $20,000 fine for every individual conviction.

JALLEN wrote:I'm sure eventually the Pony Express rider will make it to Wyoming with a copy of the Constitution so they can read for themselves that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

hasn't made it to Colorado on marijuana laws.

Here we go again....

mamabearCali wrote:

JALLEN wrote:I'm sure eventually the Pony Express rider will make it to Wyoming with a copy of the Constitution so they can read for themselves that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

hasn't made it to Colorado on marijuana laws.

Sure it has! It is just that the Federal government as it is presently manned isn't interested in enforcing those laws. Wanna bet the same would hold true with firearms?

Sometimes I wonder if the entire Federal government isn't herbed up already.

mamabearCali wrote:hasn't made it to Colorado on marijuana laws.

Hmmmm. Liberal Democrats (but I repeat myself) are typically pro-legalized drugs and anti-Second Amendment. So when the KING of Liberal Democrats decline to make a stink over 2 states who voted to legalize pot, I'm not really surprised.

How anyone can even equate the 2 situations is beyond me.

JALLEN wrote:Sure it has! It is just that the Federal government as it is presently manned isn't interested in enforcing those laws. Wanna bet the same would hold true with firearms?

Sometimes I wonder if the entire Federal government isn't herbed up already.

Ha! You beat me to it.

JALLEN wrote:I'm sure eventually the Pony Express rider will make it to Wyoming with a copy of the Constitution so they can read for themselves that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

I don't understand law as well as you but couldn't a case be made that the 10th Amendment applies? The Commerce clause allows the Federal government to regulate commerce but if I own my firearm, there is no commerce involved. Any National registration, for example, would be a regulation of the firearms themselves, not the sale of them. Since the power to regulate firearms is not specifically given to the Feds, doesn't that make it a State matter?

Yes, I know that the 10th Amendment has been pretty much left in the dust behind "progress" for a very long time.

chasfm11 wrote:I don't understand law as well as you but couldn't a case be made that the 10th Amendment applies? The Commerce clause allows the Federal government to regulate commerce but if I own my firearm, there is no commerce involved. Any National registration, for example, would be a regulation of the firearms themselves, not the sale of them. Since the power to regulate firearms is not specifically given to the Feds, doesn't that make it a State matter?

Yes, I know that the 10th Amendment has been pretty much left in the dust behind "progress" for a very long time.

I'm no lawyer, but SCOTUS has already ruled that even if a product is manufactured only for sale within a state, if that same product (or I assume product type, like a firearm) is manufactured (even by someone else) for sale outside the state, it can impact interstate commerce and therefore can be regulated by Congress. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=61339" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JALLEN wrote:I'm sure eventually the Pony Express rider will make it to Wyoming with a copy of the Constitution so they can read for themselves that:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

I say ......"So what"?

The Feds violate the Constitution freely. Time they get the same in return from the States!

AEA wrote:
I say ......"So what"?

The Feds violate the Constitution freely. Time they get the same in return from the States!

YeeeHaw! The Feds need their grimy hands slapped back. Marijuana has set a precedent or telling the Feds to fly a kite.

Not a fan of drugs at all, but this nonsense from the Feds as gotten totally out of control.

I read an article in USA Today about this. I do not have it in front of me so I will have to paraphrase.

I do not have the numbers, but multiple states have passed these laws and many are considering them.

One of the state's law is under review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

An attorney in the article who is on our side cautioned that until the laws have been judicially reviewed and ruled upon we should not put any faith in the protections supposedly provided by these state statutes.

Someone in the fed.gov was quoted in the article too. Again paraphrasing, he cautioned that the states better not annoy the fed with these silly little laws and should be ready to suffer the consequences. At least that is how I interpreted it.

If anyone thinks that the fed.gov is going to sit idly by and allow their power to be usurped and bypassed by the states they have another think coming.


I don't hear anyone in fed.gov jumping up and saying it is OK to go against their will.

Respectfully,

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:I don't hear anyone in fed.gov jumping up and saying it is OK to go against their will.

Respectfully,

Anygunanywhere

Unless, of course, it's about a subject the libs like. Like legalizing drugs.