Rockwall Mulls Declaring Federal Gun Laws Unconstitutional

Categories: Politics

michellesmith.gif
Rockwall County GOP
Michelle Smith
Longtime Collin County Sheriff Terry Box made it clear in January that he would not be party to President Obama's attempt to disarm the Real America and, presumably, pave the way for a permanent Marxist dictatorship through a handful of modest gun control proposals.

Never mind that or that a county sheriff has as much authority as a brick to declare a federal law invalid or that local law enforcement agencies don't really enforce federal gun law, per se. "Neither I, nor any of my deputies, will participate in the enforcement of laws that violate our precious constitutional rights, including our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms," he wrote on his Facebook page.

But Box is far from the only suburban Dallas official seeking to prove his right-wing bona fides by taking a flamboyant stand against the phantom threat of tyrannical limits on firearms. Rockwall City Councilwoman Michelle Smith, a Tea Party type who joined the council in 2011, has proposed a resolution declaring a host of federal gun measures, both existing and proposed, "null and void" in Rockwall.

All federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds with the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore, infringes upon Texans' right to bear arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, any such law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus, is not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, is invalid in the State of Texas and shall be further considered null and void and of no effect in this City.

This, according to the language of the resolution, is council members' "duty as law-abiding citizens" to ensure that the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon by any government or organization, political or otherwise."

Even if this passes -- which, presuming the Rockwall City Council has at least four reality-based members, it won't -- the practical effect will be the same as that of Box's pronouncements: nil.

(h/t Bud Kennedy)

Rockwall Resolution by


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
60 comments
TheCredibleHulk
TheCredibleHulk topcommenter

If you look closely at the photo, you can just make out the muzzle of a Sig-Saur 9mm poking out the front of that bee-hive.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

I didn't know in the 27 words of the 2nd Amendment that there's hidden messages that prevent taxation or limitations of the types of weapons. Please, "experts", educate us on how that short Amendment guarantees that your rights are unlimited and in perpetuity. If you want to be literal about it feel free to stock up on all muskets you'd like and restrict yourself to the arms available at the time of its passage. 

Otherwise use your fucking heads, unless you'd like to tell us that our society would be better off if grenade launchers were available to anyone with enough money.

Or is requiring money infringing on rights too? Isn't making people pay for arms unconstitutional?

oakclifftownie
oakclifftownie

So how much ASSET FORFEITURE cash Collected from folks on I 30  has filtered into the City of Rockwall  Police Department Budget ?

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

gee, isn't it the function of the judiciary to determine the constitutionality of legislation?

seems a tad ironic that this councilperson would be pushing a resolution regarding the constituion that doesn't seem to adhere to what the document establishes.

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

Michelle should be more worried about the EPA banning Aquanet.

Cliffson
Cliffson

Rockwall has succeded in creating traffic gridlock in the middle of nowhere, so they're bound to be coming up with lots of good ideas.

JaimesonPaul
JaimesonPaul

Her values, like her hair are stuck in the 80s.

observist
observist topcommenter

Just when Texas was almost free of the "big hair" stereotype....

robbysalz
robbysalz

omg that's an actual photograph 

BushwoodSmithie
BushwoodSmithie

As stated, it is not just a right but a duty for American citizens to oppose laws and regulations that violate the basic law of the land -- the U.S. Constitution.

Or perhaps you haven't heard of folks like Rosa Parks, Norma McCorvey, John Lawrence, Gregory Johnson or Oliver Brown?

cantkeepthetruthdown
cantkeepthetruthdown

Kind of like when states declare they won't enforce federal drug laws right?

Wright
Wright

Eric, just think of Rockwall as a firearms sanctuary city. Of course, if federal agents wish to try to enforce any federal law on their own, they're perfectly free to do so, just without any sort of assistance from local officials or merchants, including those offering food or lodging. And of course there's the ever-present problem of traffic violations, including serious infractions like drug smuggling, hit and run, and the like. I think if I wanted to try to enforce anything locally I'd sure like the locals on my side.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

"Modest" gun proposals?  I guess when the Republicans win control back (and we will, eventually) the rhetoric has been laid down for "modest" speech controls limiting the speech of any high-capacity press organizations with more than 5 bloggers, eh?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Scruffygeist The arms available at the time of it's passage, were dual purpose arms, hunting and military, and even the most advanced of arms at the time were available to be owned by private individuals.  The definition of an 'assault weapon' would be 'any weapon that is being used to assault someone'.  Go ahead and ban those, leave the firearms owned and safely used and stored by law-abiding citizens alone.

Well looky there, sarcasm cuts both ways.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog If you think that this "doesn't seem to adhere to what the document establishes" then you should make another, more careful read of the tenth amendment.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@BushwoodSmithie You're right, it is a duty of American Citizens to oppose laws, regulations and policies that are in opposition to the Constitution.

That's not what the erstwhile Councilwoman is doing.  She's grandstanding and pandering to her voting base.  Her words and intentions are as meaningless as her style is dated.  To equate her with those you named is a gross injustice, to equate her pompous, self-serving declaration to Rosa Parks' quiet dignity is unconscionable.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

@everlastingphelps

"I guess when the Republicans win control back (and we will, eventually) ...."

Yeah right. Keep electing locals like this dumb ass who obviously knows nothing about Federal powers and will make the city have to spend tax payers dollars in a vain attempt to defend it and your side will never win another election in decades. 

Plus, you better start loving the brown mans. Dallas, Harris and Travis counties are already Blue.

epicmale
epicmale

@RTGolden1 I might point out that the Pennsylvania rifles used by American militias (neighborhood guys with guns), were far superior to those issued to both British and American troops.  And those superior firearms weighed heavily in the success of the American Revolution's success.

And, let us not forget that Homeland Security has now renamed these evil weapons and accepts them for what they are:  Personal Defense Weapons!  So, let us not let the uninformed try any more political stampedes with the prejudicial term 'assault weapon'.  They are now, and forever more Personal Defense Weapons, as dictated by the authority of Homeland Security!

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@RTGolden1 Too bad it went over your head in your failed attempt to counter. It's not about terminology, it's about technology. The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of terminology, much less was "assault weapon" an understood term in the days of powdered wigs and outhouses. Again, I ask, where in 27 words does it guarantee those rights are unlimited in perpetuity?

primi_timpano
primi_timpano topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @mavdog

As for the tenth amendment, even if what appears to be your argument--that such a resolution is within the powers reserved to the states--Rockwall is not a state.

I hope they quit searching cars and frisking pedestrians while on their support the constitution jag.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

really? if you believe the proposed resolution has ANY relation to the 10th Amendment it is YOU who should do a bit of reading. oh, and not just reading, try really hard to understand it, too.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@Montemalone @everlastingphelps more like a nightmare. Knock down one amendment, and the others will fall in the blink of an eye.

You dumbasses are fucking with a jenga tower of rights, and seem to think its candy land.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Scruffygeist @RTGolden1 I can see your point Scruffy, and to a point, I agree with you.  reasonable limitations, and common sense prohibitions, are almost required by necessity in the context of the 2nd Amendment.  Someone yelling obscenities at me is not going to, by itself, harm me.  Someone leveling a handgun at me and sending rounds downrange can definitely put a dent in my social schedule.  Someone burning a flag, as distasteful as I may find it, is not really causing me any discomfort or infringing on my rights.  A kook neighbor with a bunker, dug in against a possible fascist takeover or alien invasion, might mistake me for said fascist or alien.

I also believe in capitalism, so I don't think the 2nd guarantees you the right to have a firearm given to you at birth.  You have the right to purchase, own and keep one (and should be able to bear it, but that shit aint going back in the goose in most cases), and to use it in a safe, responsible manner.  I also believe the ability to return fire, if absolutely necessary, is a better defense against some thug gunning for you than toting around a "Gun Free Zone" sign.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

@RTGolden1 So by that logic charging for guns is a violation of the Constitution. A person who does not have the money to afford one is having their basic rights denied. After all, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about the right to purchase arms, now does it?

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Scruffygeist The Constitution also does not, anywhere in its text grant the Federal Government the power to limit, alter or nullify our basic rights.  Sort of the whole reason for the Founding Fathers separating the Bill of Rights from the rest of the document.  I'd rather assume on the side of personal freedom and individual rights, than assume in favor of a heavy handed federal government.  You go your way, I'll go mine

By the way, the 10 amendment pretty much explicitly denies the federal government the power to jack around with individual rights.  The Bill of Rights are the rights of the people, therefore not subject to Federal tampering.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@primi_timpano it's not just the states, but cities and individuals.  The article is poorly written.  A Sheriff has substantial ability to enforce the laws as he sees it. 

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@RTGolden1 @GuitarPlayer Say what you will  about Hillary, at least she's not an empty hat.  Now I don't know what is worse, an empty hat or some pandering Machiavellian manipulator.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@GuitarPlayer Hillary, you want more war, more executive privilege abuses and more erosion of our rights?  Hillary will be worse than Obama and Obama has been about as bad as Bush on War, Civil Liberties, rule of law, foreign meddling and the like. 

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@GuitarPlayer Please nominate anyone, anyone at all, other than her.  I'd rather vote for Guv Good Hair than her.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

@everlastingphelps  


Yeah another reason the GOP is in trouble, you guys keep wanting to turn the calendar back. There is a big difference between 1985 and 2013 and you keep ignoring the growing numbers of Latinos and women voters. Hey, I encourage it. Hillary 2016.

scottindallas
scottindallas topcommenter

@observist @everlastingphelps @MarkO Observist, Guns, our tongues, abortion, drugs are all aspects of our freedom.  Their use is problematic.  But, we'd be better off allowing their free use, but to punish abuses, assault, perjury, DUI and trafficking.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@MarkO @everlastingphelps @observist The limits on free speech are every bit as much a travesty as placing limitations on the right to keep and bear arms.

Here's the rub.  We already have common sense restrictions and prohibitions in place to limit the legal access of criminals and mentally ill persons to firearms. More bans is not a common sense approach to the issue.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@observist @everlastingphelps Start with an improved mental health system, follow with a criminal justice system that isn't a joke.  Background checks for all firearms purchases is a common sense approach, but will be paraded out as a Hitlerian move by those on the Right.  Magazine and weapons bans will do nothing to alleviate gun crime or gun violence, but there's no convincing those on the Left of this.  What we'll end up with, in this age of idiot extremism on both ends, is the status quo.

observist
observist topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @observist @MarkO Well, that's one way to defend a specious argument.


mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @MarkO @observist 

the claim of prior restraint would have relevance if there were actually plans for gun prohibition. as there are not, and the right to own a gun is firmly entrenched, the claim of prior restraint is hollow.

observist
observist topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @MarkO @observist  Your argument is technically adroit, yet completely specious.  You've equated owning a gun with possessing a tongue, and the other day, with possessing genitals.  Are you honestly not able to differentiate between a killing tool you acquire and the anatomy you're born with?  Are you not able to differentiate between words, which by themselves have never killed anyone in the history of humanity, and guns, which kill 30,000 Americans every year?

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@MarkO @everlastingphelps @observist You can't because it is illegal or because your tongue was ripped out by the state?

The gun equivalent is assault with a deadly weapon, and it's already illegal.  Congratulations, we've got "modest" gun controls, and we've had them for... ever.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@observist @everlastingphelps You're arguing against yourself.  All the things you described are crimes from the abuse of the right, NOT PRIOR RESTRAINT.  All of the "modest" gun laws being proposed are prior restraint.  The equivalent crimes to the ones you've listed are murder, assault, battery, and brandishing.  They are all already illegal.

Do you have any suggestions on how to stop libelers, slanderers, inciters, perjurers, etc, BEFORE they commit their crimes?  (Also, note that two of the things you listed aren't even crimes -- they are purely civil matters.)

observist
observist topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @observist Yet somehow the 1st amendment survives with reasonable restrictions against libel, slander, inciting a riot, perjury, etc - and no cattle cars.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to keep guns out of the hands of stupid, violent, impulsive, criminally-inclined people and in the hands of law-abiding self-defenders and anti-tyrannists?



MarkO
MarkO

@everlastingphelps @observist Common sense has to be used at some point. Freedom of speech has its limits. I cannot go into a crowded room on yell fire.

observist
observist topcommenter

@everlastingphelps Wait, wait - let me guess - the 2nd amendment is the keystone, right?  And if every mouth-breathing retard can't buy an arsenal at the local Wal-Mart in 24 hours or less, then the constitution and 240 years of democracy will evaporate and we'll all be on cattle cars to the gas chamber.  That's how it goes, right?

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...