State Lawmakers Are Really Serious About Making it Illegal to Enforce Federal Gun Laws

Categories: Guns, Legislature

ComeandTakeIt.gif
As Washington shuffles forward toward some sort of expansion of gun control (universal background checks, yes; bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, maybe not), state legislators in Texas are debating the optimal technique for thumbing their noses at the federal government.

On Wednesday, the House Select Committee on Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility considered two bills, East Texas Republican John Otto's HB 553 and The Woodlands Republican Steve Toth's HB 1076, that would make it a crime to enforce any federal gun law. As in, police officers could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor if they did so.

Offering his expert testimony in favor of the bill was Aubrey Vaughan, a Baptist pastor from Otto's district who heads Pastors for the Second Amendment.

"Joshua used the sword to take the Promised Land," Vaughan told lawmakers, according to the Texas Tribune. "Everyone knows about David slaying Goliath, and the Lord Jesus said to his disciples, 'Go buy a sword.' The sword is there."

Little known fact: the Greek word for "sword" also translates as "AR-15."

Also testifying in favor of the bill was one Monte Goodell who, according to the Morning News, based his argument on an animal metaphor.

"You've heard the analogy of the mama bear and cubs," Goodell said. "Well, I'm the daddy bear. Without the firearms to protect the den, you may as well put me in a zoo with the other bears that don't have a life. Is that what we want for our country?"

Maybe, but that's not the question at hand, which is whether Texas should pass a piece of legislation that would be extremely tricky to enforce (imagine a small-town cop trying to arrest an ATF agent) and unlikely to pass constitutional muster for the sole purpose of flipping a Texas-sized bird at President Obama.

The few dozen lawmakers who have signed on to Otto's bill seem to think so, though that has not yet been enough to get the bills out of committee.

My Voice Nation Help
40 comments
kduble
kduble

The applicable legal term is nullification. This has been settled since the Civil War.

It's odd that Southern politicians insist on helping Uncle Sam enforce immigration law even when Uncle Sam makes it clear he doesn't need the help, yet they propose to get in the way of enforcing reasonable controls on firearms. It is any wonder we seem so backward to the rest of the country?

cantkeepthetruthdown
cantkeepthetruthdown

So when a state says they will not enforce federal drug laws(CA, CO, MA etc) why don't they face similar libtard derision?

CitzenKim
CitzenKim

"Aubrey Vaughan, a Baptist pastor from Otto's district who heads Pastors for the Second Amendment."

I bet his church has a painting of Jesus rippin' some Pharisees with an AK-47 up in the pulpit.

East Texas = Deliverance; why are we letting anyone from there get even close to forging State law?

MisterMean
MisterMean

Time to drug test politicians.  Why else would we be hearing this nonsense (among other nonsense).   Must be smoking crack.

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

I think this go-round we should call it the Un-Civil War. 

I sure hope they don't try to burn Dallas in summer. It's too fucking hot.

Scruffygeist
Scruffygeist

Let me get this straight:

Vaginas=regulate the fuck(ing) out of them

Guns=don't you fucking dare

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

Supremacy Clause - End of argument. The Fed is the supreme law of the land and trumps any state laws. 

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

I'm a gun owner and even I think this is retarded.  When the politicians make a blanket statement about not enforcing federal gun laws, I have to ask what about the existing gun laws?  Are they suggesting we don't need to do background checks on retail sales?  Can we now possess unregistered machine guns?

The assault rifle ban will not happen.  The background checks on private sales probably will happen.  The magazine capacity is probably 50/50.  A State law that allows for greater capacity than the Federal limit might be able to fly under the radar.  This would be similar to the new Colorado pot laws. 

These bills are just to make news stories, allow politicans to pander to their base, and to give the finger to Washington. 

There are some good pro-gun legislation in Austin right now.  These anti-ATF bills are just a distraction and might possibly cause harm to the gun pro-gun bills in commitee.

oakclifftownie
oakclifftownie

I call Bullshit. Local Law enforcement is happy with the way things are .

Why ? because local  Law Enforcement counts on the FED Gov for cooperation. More to the point the  Grant cash for the (Toys)  Drones dash cameras and the Holiday week end overtime grants for the DWI task forces 

All will be well and good until it comes to the feds not sharing that asset forfeiture money you know when the Feds start  dividing those bricks of cash from drug busts and the proceeds from the sale of   houses horses cars trucks  planes and other property .

Choose not to enforce the Fed Laws ? Forfeit any proceeds from busts where the laws are enforced  as they to confiscate weapons and impound the cash .

That is  a gravy train that would be missed . Especially in counties with long stretches of Interstate highways . And the local Task forces that that do drug interdiction . .

ruddski
ruddski

Texas will be a sanctuary state. The Feds have no problem with sanctuary states.

BastardChild
BastardChild

I dont get it. When anyone talks about a new gun law, all we hear is, "there are enough laws on the books already, lets just enforce the ones we have". Now they dont even want to do that? So is the basic premise of the gun nut that there should be no laws or restrictions on any kind of firearm whatsoever? 

unclescrappy
unclescrappy

Sounds real simple to me. There has been Federal & State Court cases which have said we cant enforce Laws regarding ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Well then fine, since those are FEDERAL LAWS they want us to keep our hands off of, we will do the same regarding these federal laws too. 

Maybe we need to pass a law where we wont allow State run facilities to be used to house people accused of certain Federal Crimes. Like these IDIOT Federal Gun Laws.

So local Barney Fife catches you with your 50+ capacity magazine for you tricked out AR15. No problem, have a good day. Even if Federal Deputy Dan catches you, he will have to find a Federal lockup somewhere to put you then. He might have to transport you hundreds of miles to do so. Once again a good use of our Federal Tax Dollars in this sequester times. (Wont happen, might interfere with the obummers golf outings expenses or his hoe's million dollar vacations)

epicmale
epicmale

@Scruffygeist No one purports to 'regulate' vaginas.  That is something made up by the left to divert peoples' attention from attempts to protect unborn babies.  But then, perhaps you can somehow rationalize allowing the murder of a baby five minutes before it is born.  After all, obama says that is ok, time and time again.

Guns, on the other hand, protect us from evil people who ignore the laws protecting life.

Get it, yet?

markzero
markzero

@Scruffygeist this may only be resolved when more women have guns and the training to use them in their own defense. Also, can't resist:


"The gun is good. The penis is evil." -- Zardoz.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@GuitarPlayer Umm, no.  There are the enumerated powers in the Constitution for the federal government and then everything else is left to the several states.

Don't forget the  authority of the sovereign native Americans on their own lands.


Some would say that the commerce clause has been extended too far in establishing the reach of the federal government.

Chuck_Schick
Chuck_Schick

@Rumpunch1 Excellent points. Nothing will be banned, but the pro-gun side has to give up some ground as well. It's called compromise!

ruddski
ruddski

@BastardChild

"So is the basic premise of the gun nut that there should be no laws or restrictions on any kind of firearm whatsoever? "

Works in Vermont.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul

Umm, yes. 

"Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Supremacy+Clause

epicmale
epicmale

@Chuck_Schick  Every attempt to compromise with liberals always results in them forgetting what they promised to do in order to hold up their side of the bargain.  It is like dealing with a three year old.  Liberals need to focus upon enforcing the law against existing criminals instead of worrying about honest citizens.

Rumpunch1
Rumpunch1

@Chuck_Schick @Rumpunch1 Compromise - they don't know that word. Our cuurent elected officials (both parties) would rather ask for the moon and lose.  Then they can tell their base they tried and blame the loss on the other side.

epicmale
epicmale

@Scruffygeist Really?  What a rebuttal!  I'm impressed.  Try some more equal signs.  That was impressive.  LOL...

epicmale
epicmale

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul You are 100% correct, but the 'mob rule' types want to ignore that part of the Constitution.  They want to pick and choose only those portions that allow the Marxist in Chief to gut the rest of the Constitution.  What part of 'shall not infringe' do they not understand?  Commerce my butt.  Technically, I have the right to build any gun I want.  As long as I don't try to sell it across state lines or to another country, they can't legally touch me.

bealotcoolerifyoudid
bealotcoolerifyoudid

@GuitarPlayer Throw in some Commerce Clause decisions as well, since that is what will allow the Federal Government to regulate guns as they are goods in interstate commerce.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul

Paul, my man......read up on some Supreme Court decisions going back over 200 years. There is no way a state can trump Federal law thanks to the Supremacy Clause.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@GuitarPlayer @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul Please read your own posts.  It is only the enumerated powers in which the federal government has supremacy.  In all other matters it is left to the states.

And ... the federal government does not have supremacy on Indian tribal lands.


Because of the enumerated powers, many things are left directly to the states, for example:


1) drivers licenses

2) professional licenses

3) police matters internal to the states


among others ...

epicmale
epicmale

@GuitarPlayer So, shall we assume you are not a Texan?  If this place bothers you that much, why don't you move to NYC?  We won't miss you one bit.  LOL....  On the way, you can stop and ask the family of Mary Jo Kopechne what they think of drunk drivers.

GuitarPlayer
GuitarPlayer

@ruddski  

Texans and rednecks wrote the book on drinking and acting like idiots.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

OOOO!  See now I couldn't get away with that.  The Editor would be all over me.

ruddski
ruddski

@BastardChild @ruddski

Vermont has Texans, but their problem is Massachusetts, those people talk funny, can't drive, and get pretty fucking stupid when drunk.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...