Texas needs this! - bill to nullify federal gun law.

[JALLEN]

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!

There's a good rule. "Neener, neener, neener, they did it first!"

The answer is making sure they don't do it first, not "everybody else does it!"

If we are right, and we believe we are, of course, then get out there and sell it to your neighbors, friends, associates, distant cousins, ex-girlfriends and TV preachers. The Constitution is a collection of shared values which are worthless unless we believe in them and act accordingly. We say, "Screw the Constitution. We want to be supreme on laws we like." The anti's are saying "Screw the Constitution. The Second Amendment is outmoded, wrong headed, dangerous and scary."

That is what led to the Civil War. Laws were passed in the face of inflexible views on each side. The losers said "OK, we're outa here then."

There is bound to be a better way.

[AEA]

My post "So What" may have been a bit misleading......

I propose that Texas follow (should have led again) Wyoming with a similar Legislation only to show support and resolution of the cause. Not likely to be enforced, but "on the books" for the record. A "Strong Statement" if you will.......

[Andrew]

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!

There's a good rule. "Neener, neener, neener, they did it first!"

The answer is making sure they don't do it first, not "everybody else does it!"

If we are right, and we believe we are, of course, then get out there and sell it to your neighbors, friends, associates, distant cousins, ex-girlfriends and TV preachers. The Constitution is a collection of shared values which are worthless unless we believe in them and act accordingly. We say, "Screw the Constitution. We want to be supreme on laws we like." The anti's are saying "Screw the Constitution. The Second Amendment is outmoded, wrong headed, dangerous and scary."

That is what led to the Civil War. Laws were passed in the face of inflexible views on each side. The losers said "OK, we're outa here then."

There is bound to be a better way.

The "better way" is as you stated, sell it to everyone. How do we do that with the hardcore antis? Change the way that you engage in the debate. I found this link http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagain ... efense.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on another thread. A good look at who our opponents are and how to get through to them.

[JALLEN]

The "better way" is as you stated, sell it to everyone. How do we do that with the hardcore antis? Change the way that you engage in the debate. I found this link http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagain ... efense.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on another thread. A good look at who our opponents are and how to get through to them.

If it was easy, everyone would do it!

As I have observed a few times recently, Professor Lyndon Johnson had the essence of political science down pat.

When you have the votes, they do things your way. When they have the votes, you do things their way.

It is just that simple, and indeed, in our form of republican democracy, such as it is, it is all that really matters.

It is absolutely essential to vote into office men and women who support and defend the Constitution as we believe it to be, and to get rid of those who do not or cannot.

Think of all the predicaments being successful would avoid. We wouldn't have to lay awake in terror every night praying for the health of a few Supreme Court Justices. As it is right now, if one, or God forbid, a couple of them get run over by a beer truck, or something dreadful, we're going to be in a mess. The same holds true with lower courts, and with the Senate. You guys have done your part, there in Texas, of course, but the rest of the country is in peril, and Texas because of it. Think of all the goofy laws, policies that have been passed in the last few decades. Is this America?

Somehow, the Texas attitude, the Texas lifestyle, the Texas way, has to be sold around the country. You can't have everyone move there. That would ruin everything. Not the hats, the pick up trucks, the bar-b-q, of course.

I have long considered that real Texans are among the world's finest people, responsible, self-reliant, honest, hard working, courteous to strangers, helpful to and protective of women and children, neighborly without being nosy, unafraid to deal with whatever challenges life may put in the path, uncomplaining mostly. You know some, I'm sure. I grew up with folks like that.

I worry that we are on the edge of an abyss, where all these traits, I consider them virtues, will be swept away in despair, degradation, dependence on the collective, into a new Dark Ages made more terrible by unchecked violence, want, ignorance, and superstition.

[chasfm11]

I worry that we are on the edge of an abyss, where all these traits, I consider them virtues, will be swept away in despair, degradation, dependence on the collective, into a new Dark Ages made more terrible by unchecked violence, want, ignorance, and superstition.

I suspect that you have a lot more company in your concern than anyone realizes.

[texanjoker]

It is a good statement on sovereign states rights, but will it hold up? I doubt it. It is amazing how the fed's stick their nose in state business when it suits them. They did nothing to protect all the citizens in CA when CA passed all sorts of strict gun laws. They said they are doing nothing in WA and CO, both of which legalized marijuana in violation of federal law.

[chuckybrown]

An area State Rep is introducing the "Firearm Protection Act".

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Woodland ... 77481.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would make any new federal laws unenforceable.

Not sure of the whole federal vs. state thing.....

[Jumping Frog]

My post "So What" may have been a bit misleading......

I propose that Texas follow (should have led again) Wyoming with a similar Legislation only to show support and resolution of the cause. Not likely to be enforced, but "on the books" for the record. A "Strong Statement" if you will.......

I disagree, it would be a bad law.

First, it would be meaningless in terms of actually advancing the cause.

But worse, some poor unsuspecting sucker would hear about the law, assume he is good, and find himself made an example of by the feds, becoming a felon and losing his lifetime gun rights.

If you want to make a statement, simply pass a resolution putting any kind of insulting, scurrilous, degrading, insulting language into it you think they deserve. But don't pass a meaningless law that can make unwitting people felons.

[trentwhite778]

An area State Rep is introducing the "Firearm Protection Act".

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Woodland ... 77481.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It would make any new federal laws unenforceable.

Not sure of the whole federal vs. state thing.....

NICE!

[MeMelYup]

State law cannot supersede federal law. The Constitution is supreme, then federal, then state, then county,then city.if we could get the congressional leaders, along with a some judges, to understand that the Constitution is supreme. Then there is getting them to understand the way it is written is direct and what it means. If we could do that we would be okay.

[Keith B]

Missouri now has a bill now jumped on the bandwagon with a similar bill http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.asp ... 013&code=R" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RPB]

47 states revolt against Obama gun control
Fed-up Americans: 'We're not going to accept this. We're against it'
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/47-states-re ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

===========================

ALSO
Explanation of safety
Well photo cut off, to see it all http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-x70Obr7UzDQ/U ... AG0976.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jeff Barriault]

The supramecy clause of the Constitution begins with the words, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;" What if a law isn't made in pursuance thereof? According to Thomas Jefferson it isn't a law and is null and void.

Who gets to determine the constitutionality of a law? The supreme court? What if they are wrong? When did we as Americans turn over all authority to them? Their authority is restricted to each individual case and only applies to the parties involved. The whole concept of judicial review and determining constitutionality of laws is a power they usurped.

We The People, through our local communities, sherifs, and state legislatures are the ultimate authority on determining the constitutionality of anything the federal government does. It is our duty to resist tyranny at every opportunity. Voting the bums out of Washington doesn't work. It is time to fight back from our states. We need to support local laws that call unconstitutional federal laws exactly what they are, unconstitutional. Those laws also need teeth, like making it a felony for any federal authority attempting to enforce the unconstitutional law. And we need local sherifs and law enforcement willing to enforce the law over and over and over regardless of what the courts do or say.

Obama is not a king. The supreme court is not an oligarchy. When congress passes laws that are unconstitutional, we the people need to fight back by all means available. Voting isn't working . . .

[Jumping Frog]

Who gets to determine the constitutionality of a law? The supreme court? What if they are wrong? When did we as Americans turn over all authority to them?

You need to understand that the Supreme Court does not review legislation and decide whether it is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court simply rules on cases brought before it. That means an aggrieved party must have "standing", meaning they are directly affected by the case. Once a case is brought before the Supreme Court, the court issues a ruling on the case that may have as a side effect the ruling that some aspect of the law cannot be enforced because it is unconstitutional.

This is entirely consistent with the Constitution.

Article 3 Section 1 establishes one supreme Court and makes it clear that other courts are "inferior". In other words, the Supreme Court has the final authority:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Article 3 Section 2 establishes the courts jurisdiction:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Once we realize that the Supreme Court does not do a "legislation review" but simply decides cases brought before it, the Constitution obviously gives them the judicial power to do so.

If you don't like that, then amend the Constitution. After all, if one wants to argue the Second Amendment must be respected and followed, seems to me that Article Three deserves the same respect.

[Jeff Barriault]

You need to understand that the Supreme Court does not review legislation and decide whether it is constitutional or not. The Supreme Court simply rules on cases brought before it. That means an aggrieved party must have "standing", meaning they are directly affected by the case. Once a case is brought before the Supreme Court, the court issues a ruling on the case that may have as a side effect the ruling that some aspect of the law cannot be enforced because it is unconstitutional.

What happens when they rule wrong and the side effect results in an expansion of government power? The founders, Federalist Papers, ratifying conventions, and individual state constitutions make the meaning of the Second Amendment clear. Yet we have the NFA, which passes constitunal scrutiny only under a twisted reading of the commerce clause.

How does a plant, grown at home, that is never sold or transported across state lines, and used only by the individual who grew it regulated under the commerce clause? The Supreme Court can be wrong. We the People have traditionally fought such things through the states by using the Jeffersonian principle of nullification and the power of the Tenth Amendment. When enough states push back against the Feds they eventually loose. The principle has been applied to effectively nullify everything from the Fugitive Slave Act to the Real ID act.

My point is the Supreme Court, although having the supreme authority for a controversy brought before them, are not the supreme rulers of this land. And neither is the government. When the government passes a law contrary to the constitution, and the supreme court incorrectly rules on it, it is not a law and is null and void. And it is the duty of the states to fight back against such usurpations of power.