Texas to Join Wyoming: Felony Charges for Enforcing New Gun Control

[SuperiorDG]

Texas state representative Steve Toth is filing legislation for a "Firearms Protection Act" similar to that which we saw in Wyoming (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/Wyoming-Lawmakers-To-Federal-Gun-Grabbers-Don-t-Tread-On-Us). This law will make "any federal law (http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/texas-legislator-to-file-firearms-protection-act/) banning semi-automatic handguns or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state's boundaries."
Not only will this put Texas shoulder-to-shoulder with Wyoming in making it a felony for anyone--including federal agents--to try to enforce new gun control, but according to the Tenth Amendment Center it is in perfect harmony with the actions of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, "who has already filed over twenty-three lawsuits against the federal government."
More good news--representative Toth is newly elected, which means he isn't wasting any time. He is taking it to the gun-grabbers instead of sitting back to see what happens next.
Toth puts it this way: "We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution they no longer believe in."
The message is simple: "Don't Mess With Texas," and particularly, with Texas' gun laws.

[lowspeed_highdrag]

A lot of these laws cant truly be enforced, but they send a great message. The realy way to tell the fed. to shove it is to legally withhold funds and use them for your own state.

[birddog]

I will still take Wyoming.

[Delfuego]

I will still take Wyoming.[Score]

[Teufelhund]

A lot of these laws cant truly be enforced, but they send a great message. The realy way to tell the fed. to shove it is to legally withhold funds and use them for your own state.

I beg to differ. The Tenth Amendment guarantees State Sovereignty over any issue not expressly granted to Congress by the Enumerated Powers. The fed doesn't think this applies to them anymore, but that doesn't make it so.

[spqrzilla]

Since Supreme Court precedent is that the commerce clause is broad enough power for regulation of firearms, the supremacy clause means that these state laws are a nullity. Worth zipola.

[blacklabel]

Since Supreme Court precedent is that the commerce clause is broad enough power for regulation of firearms, the supremacy clause means that these state laws are a nullity. Worth zipola.

I think that the underlying statement of "don't screw with us" is really the important factor here.

[Dave]

I will still take Wyoming.
Same, I was stationed at Ft Hood and was told that I wasn't patriotic since I didn't like the Cowboys and they are America's team.[blah-blah]

[Teufelhund]

Since Supreme Court precedent is that the commerce clause is broad enough power for regulation of firearms, the supremacy clause means that these state laws are a nullity. Worth zipola.

The SC's interpretation of the commerce clause providing congress with unlimited power to regulate anything they want is a flawed interpretation that flies in the face of everything else in that document. What else in the Constitution lends itself to unlimited power of Congress? There are 18 things Congress is allowed to do. They are written down in plain English so as not to be misconstrued.

If you've been in the military, you're familiar with Article 134 of the UCMJ. This is referred to as the "catch all" article. When you do something that pisses off someone with more stripes than you, and they can't find any other article it falls under, they nail you with 134. Despite popular belief, the Constitution does not have one of these in the commerce clause.

ETA: How did we get to this interpretation that the commerce clause grants unlimited power? The most profound socialist we've had in office prior to 2008. . .FDR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDf5_Thqsk

[Fmedges]

Just like Amendment 64 here. The Feds don't want to open that can of worms so why would they want to open that one.

[The Nuge]

The SC's interpretation of the commerce clause providing congress with unlimited power to regulate anything they want is a flawed interpretation that flies in the face of everything else in that document. What else in the Constitution lends itself to unlimited power of Congress? There are 18 things Congress is allowed to do. They are written down in plain English so as not to be misconstrued.

My High School Civics teacher told me that too.

[spqrzilla]

Gawd, I hate the weasel faced little Erwin Chemerinsky.

Regardless, we have to live with the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause because there is zero chance of changing the Supreme Court precedent on it.

[Gman]

As I get older, I'm getting to the point that, no, I don't have to live with that interpretation.

[sniper7]

Good for them. Hopefully this is helping to send a clear message.

[osok-308]

Oh how I wish we could pass that here! I mean, with all the anti gun legislation, maybe we should fight back by introducing pro gun legislation.