Texas Firearms Freedom Act

[Charles L. Cotton]

Perhaps I'm misinformed, but I thought this came up before:

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=HB145

Some type of narrow reading of the 10th amendment or some such?

You're right, but it went nowhere. If fact, the author pulled down the bill.

Chas.

[APynckel]

This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

They can, because the constitution specifically states that interstate commerce, is the only commerce that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in.

Fight, Chas!

Are they going to arrest the entire state, and its legislature?

[Charles L. Cotton]

This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

They can, because the constitution specifically states that interstate commerce, is the only commerce that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in.

You need to read some of the absurd Commerce Clause cases. Congress can do pretty much anything it wants and Supreme Court case law will support it. The only recent case that hinted at a limitation on the scope of the Commerce Clause was the Obamacare case. It's the only bright spot in Robert's sellout.

Are they going to arrest the entire state, and its legislature?

Nope. They'll wait until some poor sucker actually believes the proposed law means something and makes a machine gun, short-barrel shotgun or rifle, or anything else covered by the National Firearms Act. Then the clueless Texan will be arrested, tried and convicted, and sent to prison as a felon.

Sorry, I won't "fight" for a bill that would put good people in prison.

Chas.

[bizarrenormality]

This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

They can, because the constitution specifically states that interstate commerce, is the only commerce that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in.

You need to read some of the absurd Commerce Clause cases. Congress can do pretty much anything it wants and Supreme Court case law will support it. The only recent case that hinted at a limitation on the scope of the Commerce Clause was the Obamacare case. It's the only bright spot in Robert's sellout.

APynckel,

Roscoe Filburn grew wheat on his farm that was eaten on his farm. It did not cross state lines. It was not sold. Despite those plain facts, SCOTUS said that could be regulated as interstate commerce. It's all been down hill from there.

[APynckel]

This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

They can, because the constitution specifically states that interstate commerce, is the only commerce that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in.

You need to read some of the absurd Commerce Clause cases. Congress can do pretty much anything it wants and Supreme Court case law will support it. The only recent case that hinted at a limitation on the scope of the Commerce Clause was the Obamacare case. It's the only bright spot in Robert's sellout.

Are they going to arrest the entire state, and its legislature?

Nope. They'll wait until some poor sucker actually believes the proposed law means something and makes a machine gun, short-barrel shotgun or rifle, or anything else covered by the National Firearms Act. Then the clueless Texan will be arrested, tried and convicted, and sent to prison as a felon.

Sorry, I won't "fight" for a bill that would put good people in prison.

Chas.

All common (post 1803) "SCOTUS" constitutional / unconstitutional cases are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SCOTUS was never allowed to dictate constitutionality! They usurped that power, under their own decree, and were never challenged by the legislature!

Make a State "Bureaucracy" under the 10th amendment that manages all intrastate sales of class III devices. Undercede BATFE and the NFA. Show that Texas can manage it better, faster, and CHEAPER than the NFA registration can! Tell the Federal monstrosity that it does not have the power to tell the people what they can and can not own.

If the federal government had the "right" to provide healthcare, it would say so in the constitution! Just because SCOTUS says it's constitutional, doesn't make it so! That is nullified by Marbury v Madison in its entirety. The American people have been duped into thinking that it's SCOTUS' job to tell them that something is unconstitutional, rather than knowing that it's unconstitutional, based on the constitution!

What if those good people are willing to face prison so that their state will back them? So that the Texan, and American people can once again live life without the federal government interceding in EVERY SINGLE THING THEY DO?? What if someone is willing to go down, so that the federal government will be devastated? So that the People shall wake up?

Would that be enough for you, and the TEXAS LEGISLATURE to support? We are TEXAS! We are the only state that has been its own independent country before entering this god forsaken "union"! Fight for your people, Chas! Fight for Texans! Fight for TEXAS! Intercede Chas! Thumb the federal government! Tell them to get bent! House those whom the federal government considers criminals under your wing, and fight for your People!

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

APynckel,

Roscoe Filburn grew wheat on his farm that was eaten on his farm. It did not cross state lines. It was not sold. Despite those plain facts, SCOTUS said that could be regulated as interstate commerce. It's all been down hill from there.

Then give up, roll over, enjoy obamacare, social security and FICA and the deliciously awesome care you'll get from them!

I for one shall not be silenced, and intend to proclaim the overreaches this government has placed on its people, the people who RULE IT!

I am tired of being subjected to law that I had no part in voting for. Law that takes almost a third of my paycheck to pay for things that this government has no constitutional authority to pay for. Redistribution, bailouts, SS, FICA, Obamacare... I don't give a hoot anymore. I'm tired of it all. I want this country back to how it was designed. A country run by a body of independent States.



and above all

[jmra]

This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

They can, because the constitution specifically states that interstate commerce, is the only commerce that the Federal Government has jurisdiction in.

You need to read some of the absurd Commerce Clause cases. Congress can do pretty much anything it wants and Supreme Court case law will support it. The only recent case that hinted at a limitation on the scope of the Commerce Clause was the Obamacare case. It's the only bright spot in Robert's sellout.

Are they going to arrest the entire state, and its legislature?

Nope. They'll wait until some poor sucker actually believes the proposed law means something and makes a machine gun, short-barrel shotgun or rifle, or anything else covered by the National Firearms Act. Then the clueless Texan will be arrested, tried and convicted, and sent to prison as a felon.

Sorry, I won't "fight" for a bill that would put good people in prison.

Chas.

All common (post 1803) "SCOTUS" constitutional / unconstitutional cases are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SCOTUS was never allowed to dictate constitutionality! They usurped that power, under their own decree, and were never challenged by the legislature!

Make a State "Bureaucracy" under the 10th amendment that manages all intrastate sales of class III devices. Undercede BATFE and the NFA. Show that Texas can manage it better, faster, and CHEAPER than the NFA registration can! Tell the Federal monstrosity that it does not have the power to tell the people what they can and can not own.

If the federal government had the "right" to provide healthcare, it would say so in the constitution! Just because SCOTUS says it's constitutional, doesn't make it so! That is nullified by Marbury v Madison in its entirety. The American people have been duped into thinking that it's SCOTUS' job to tell them that something is unconstitutional, rather than knowing that it's unconstitutional, based on the constitution!

What if those good people are willing to face prison so that their state will back them? So that the Texan, and American people can once again live life without the federal government interceding in EVERY SINGLE THING THEY DO?? What if someone is willing to go down, so that the federal government will be devastated? So that the People shall wake up?

Would that be enough for you, and the TEXAS LEGISLATURE to support? We are TEXAS! We are the only state that has been its own independent country before entering this god forsaken "union"! Fight for your people, Chas! Fight for Texans! Fight for TEXAS! Intercede Chas! Thumb the federal government! Tell them to get bent! House those whom the federal government considers criminals under your wing, and fight for your People!

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

APynckel,

Roscoe Filburn grew wheat on his farm that was eaten on his farm. It did not cross state lines. It was not sold. Despite those plain facts, SCOTUS said that could be regulated as interstate commerce. It's all been down hill from there.

Then give up, roll over, enjoy obamacare, social security and FICA and the deliciously awesome care you'll get from them!

I for one shall not be silenced, and intend to proclaim the overreaches this government has placed on its people, the people who RULE IT!

I am tired of being subjected to law that I had no part in voting for. Law that takes almost a third of my paycheck to pay for things that this government has no constitutional authority to pay for. Redistribution, bailouts, SS, FICA, Obamacare... I don't give a hoot anymore. I'm tired of it all. I want this country back to how it was designed. A country run by a body of independent States.



and above all

I'm confused. You talk about this "God forsaken Union", then you "wave the American flag.

[APynckel]

I'm confused. You talk about this "God forsaken Union", then you "wave the American flag.

It was a sarcastic comment attempting to recollect the feelings we had for the original union. Notice its mention in quotations. We no longer live in a Union.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Would that be enough for you, and the TEXAS LEGISLATURE to support?

Enough; stop now. I'm not kidding.

Chas.

[ryouiki]

Nope. They'll wait until some poor sucker actually believes the proposed law means something and makes a machine gun, short-barrel shotgun or rifle, or anything else covered by the National Firearms Act. Then the clueless Texan will be arrested, tried and convicted, and sent to prison as a felon.

Sorry, I won't "fight" for a bill that would put good people in prison.

Chas.

This thread has probably exceeded its lifetime, but I just have to respond to this...

Over the past few weeks, we've been inundated by negative media, numerous discussions about "what-ifs", and draconian legislation that will supposedly be brought up in Washington (Feinstien I'm looking at you)... I don't know about others personally, but all of that has really been dragging me down...

I see so many spouting the "we have to do something"... but reading this, the "we have to do the right thing"... it really helps erase much of that negativity that has been latching on recently. I'm sure others feel the same, but I truly appreciate that people like you are out there working for all of us.

[Jumping Frog]

All common (post 1803) "SCOTUS" constitutional / unconstitutional cases are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SCOTUS was never allowed to dictate constitutionality! They usurped that power, under their own decree, and were never challenged by the legislature!

Have you ever actually read the Constitution? Why don't you review Article III, including but not limited to Section 2.

[APynckel]

All common (post 1803) "SCOTUS" constitutional / unconstitutional cases are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SCOTUS was never allowed to dictate constitutionality! They usurped that power, under their own decree, and were never challenged by the legislature!

Have you ever actually read the Constitution? Why don't you review Article III, including but not limited to Section 2.

No where in A3S2 does it state that SCOTUS can dictate constitutionality by "judicial review"

Ask yourself, why would the founders want a federal government that can determine constitutionality of its own laws? "Fox guarding the henhouse" much?

[57Coastie]

This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

I have to disagree Charles. How many states have presently successfully "opted-out" of federal marijuana legislation?

The bill discussed may not be the best, but I'll have to say that I think the principle of nullification of unconstitutional federal laws encompasses a path we should all seek. We need to find new and creative ways to enforce our tenth amendment rights. Simple things that put the feds on notice and say, "Hey, this law of yours is constitutionally out of your jurisdiction. And we will fine y'all and/or throw your rear in jail if we catch y'all attempting to enforce it within our state."

Wrong.

The federal law still applies, although whether or not it is enforced by the Administraton at any particular place and at any particular time is something else again. In those states which have "opted out" (which is a major misnomer) one may be tried and convicted of a federal crime while at the same time what was once a similar state crime is a state crime no longer.

Article VI of our Constitution is still alive and well, even in Texas.

Jim

[VMI77]

This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

The Feds have made it clear they don't want assistance from the States when it comes to enforcing immigration laws. Any chance of a Texas law that prevents Texas LEO's from enforcing the Feinstein ban, or something like it?

[57Coastie]

All common (post 1803) "SCOTUS" constitutional / unconstitutional cases are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SCOTUS was never allowed to dictate constitutionality! They usurped that power, under their own decree, and were never challenged by the legislature!

Have you ever actually read the Constitution? Why don't you review Article III, including but not limited to Section 2.

Frog,

During the last more than 200 years it has been suggested that indeed SCOTUS, under the great Chief Justice John Marshall, granted itself the power to review the constitutionality of acts by the Congress and the President. Legal scholars, from 1803 to even a small few these days, have made a rational argument to this effect, but more discreet language has been used, thank goodness, than that our forum member has used here to raise the point. Such screaming tends to be ignored by those having power in our government, regardless of their political persuasion.

Certainly Article II of the Constitution does not explicitly bestow on POTUS the power to decide upon the constitutionality of acts by the Congress or the President.

I find it difficult having to agree, at least somewhat, with our member who is making this argument 200 years too late, but I would be unprincipled if I did not.

SCOTUS quite arguably took the opportunity to assume that power in one lawsuit it ruled on in 1803, very early in the history of our republic. It is quite arguable that it was not necessary for the court to rule on that particular issue, nor did it, the issue not really being before the court, the argument being that its "holding" was obiter dictum. Yours truly is one of those who questions the court's decision in that respect, along with great Americans like Thomas Jefferson.

This is still a legal question, Frog. I may be wrong. Jefferson may have been wrong. So please read this as my opinion -- not a fact.

But it was done, and with a lot of mumbling in many quarters it has become acceptable for over 200 yearts. It is water over the dam, now, and IMNSHO it is too late for anyone to do anything about it. "Anyone" includes the Congress, the President, individual states in the union, and the American people. I am not saying that nobody can do anything about it; rather, I mean I do not believe there will ever be a viable attempt to do something about it, at least not in our lifetimes.

I believe that this very decision, Marbury v. Madison, has directly led to SCOTUS becoming the political animal it is now. Is that good -- bad? One's view on that question is generally determined by comparing one's political philosophy with the current political philosophy of SCOTUS, as demonstrated by how five or more members join together to decide an issue important to a particular individual -- as demonstrated by whose ox is gored. SCOTUS's assumption, if you will, of this power has hardened into reality, and it is no longer questioned by lawyers and judges, and our citizens in general accept it, even though from time to time the issue pops up, often in intemperate language, just as we have seen it pop up here.

Besides, even if one should think, for one reason or another, that SCOTUS should not have the final decision on this question, who else would we be left with to maintain some sort of order within what could become the chaos of the "checks and balances" in our Federal system of government?

The Congress? The President?

Jim

[Kythas]

Mr. Cotton it may be an exersice in futility but we the people have to push back some how. I sent Senator Hutchinson correspondence on the upcoming awb and her response was less than hopeful. She supports the 2nd amendment but........There is no but if you support the 2nd in my opinion. I can't just leave it to the NRA, GAO et al. I'm just trying to be as proactive as possible.

Why? As of today, Sen Hutchison is no longer a Senator. Our Senators are now Cruz and Cornyn.