TexasCHLforum.com

loadedliberal wrote:The supremacy clause is clear, federal law trumps state law every time.

Have you read the supremacy clause?

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.

The key part is the phrase "in pursuance thereof." Federal law is NOT supreme if it wasn't made "in pursuance" of the constitution. Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say on the subject.

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 wrote:Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

This should probably be brought over to the Political forum, but I felt it was important enough to clear up this misunderstanding some still have concerning the supremacy clause.

My neighbor Jeff is correct about the meaning of the supremacy clause.

The lifetime ban on felons owning firearms was enacted in the Gun Control Act of 1968. It has been upheld in court many times.

A state can only choose not to prosecute felons under state law, which Texas has done in certain cases.

I have to add, every once in a while a felon is charged with possession of a firearm in circumstances that seem unjust. However, most of the time, it is a reprobate felon who is continuing his criminal career.

- Jim

loadedliberal wrote:

Apophis wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Yes, there is; but it does no good if the feds get involved. It's like other state laws that allow something prohibited by federal law, such as medical marijuana.

- Jim

Seems the federal gov't is overstepping its bounds.
Isn't the first time the constitution has been pushed to the side though.

The supremacy clause is clear, federal law trumps state law every time.

You might want to check into the 10th amendment. That came out before any SCOTUS rulings, or surpemacy clauses.

I retract my previous statement I agree with the other members who were kind enough to enlighten me on the subject.

74novaman wrote:

AEA wrote:A .44 cap and ball revolver can still do the same job that many modern center fire revolvers do, quite nicely.

It's drawback is that if you can't do the job successfully in 6 shots, you will be in a bunch of trouble trying to reload.

Civil War era Cavalry solved that problem by carrying a BUNCH of revolvers.

And the problem with the Gun Control Act of 1968 is that it relies on a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause. The word "regulate" in the Commerce Clause in the context which it was written meant "to keep regular." Imagine if Texas passed a law that said if you live in Texas you can only purchase gasoline refined in Texas and produced exclusively in Texas. And if you lived on the border with Oklahoma and crossed the border to purchase gasoline because it was cheaper there, you'd be in violation of Texas law. Under the commerce clause you would have recourse to file a suit against Texas in Federal court because Texas was interfering with "regular" trade between the states. The Commerce Clause was never meant to allow the Federal Government to regulate the entire oil and gas industry like they do today. I know, it sounds crazy, but all you have to do is go back and read some of the discussions between the founders and ratifiers of the Constitution to clear things up.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 is unconstitutional. It was justified using the same faulty logic of the commerce clause. It has nothing to do with making sure firearms are freely available to all citizens across state lines but rather uses a modern definition of regulate to seek to control free access to firearms. And baring felons from owning firearms . . . what does that have to do with commerce? Oh wait, because guns are used in commerce under the commerce clause government can "regulate" all aspects, even ownership, despite the Second Amendment explicitly stating to the contrary. Preposterous.

Just because Congress created it, President Lyndon Johnson signed it, and Federal courts have upheld it, doesn't make it constitutional or supreme. It is our lack and the lack of our State governments standing up against it and other laws like it that gives the federal authority the perceived position of supremacy. It is only supreme because we allow it. Maybe, just maybe, it is time to start taking back our ultimate authority as sovereign citizens? And one way to do that is by educating ourselves on the very basics of what a self governing, Constitutional Republic is and what the true meaning of our Constitution really is.

And in those cases where an ex felon was following Texas law and legally possessed a long gun in Texas all it would take to keep the Feds from wrongly prosecuting someone who paid their debt to society and was attempting to live lawfully would be a Sheriff with balls enough to go and arrest the Federal prosecutor and judge who are making a mockery of our Constitution and State sovereignty. But that isn't likely to happen any time soon so my advice to your friend is to stay away from firearms and become an expert archer or martial artist or something else.

Jeff Barriault wrote: --snip--
And in those cases where an ex felon was following Texas law and legally possessed a long gun in Texas all it would take to keep the Feds from wrongly prosecuting someone who paid their debt to society and was attempting to live lawfully would be a Sheriff with balls enough to go and arrest the Federal prosecutor and judge who are making a mockery of our Constitution and State sovereignty. But that isn't likely to happen any time soon so my advice to your friend is to stay away from firearms and become an expert archer or martial artist or something else.

Jury Nullification is the only way to change our runaway government. If juries refuse to convict defendants charged with particular crime, the prosecutors will eventually quit filling those charges. Jury Nullification is a dirty word in most legal circles with judges even telling juries that they cannot find a defendant not guilty just because they believe the law is unjust.

This is an interesting and short read:
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... ation.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Other informational links about Jury Nullification:
http://www.fija.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/histo ... -null.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.washburnlaw.edu/wlj/46-2/art ... andrew.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (A long read.)

Jeff Barriault wrote:The Gun Control Act of 1968 is unconstitutional.

I agree, but neither of us is a Supreme Court justice.

- Jim

Jumping Frog wrote:

glock27 wrote:just curious, i have a friend of my brother who just got a felony for a non violent crime (evading).

It doesn't have to be an issue that bars him or the rest of his life. If he gets his record expunged or sealed, then that removes the federal disability.

Good luck with that one right now. The present administration is not very likely to expunge any felony. Especially if it is a recent one.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

glock27 wrote:just curious, i have a friend of my brother who just got a felony for a non violent crime (evading).

It doesn't have to be an issue that bars him or the rest of his life. If he gets his record expunged or sealed, then that removes the federal disability.

Good luck with that one right now. The present administration is not very likely to expunge any felony. Especially if it is a recent one.

Unless you're from Chicago.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Good luck with that one right now. The present administration is not very likely to expunge any felony. Especially if it is a recent one.

For restoration of rights, a state conviction has to be expunged by the state government.

When that happens, the system seems to work.

You're correct that expunction is not going to happen soon after the sentence is ended, and I'm sure it isn't cheap. I don't know the ins and outs of it.

The only recourse for a federal offense is a presidential pardon. Barack Obama has pardoned 17 people so far. George W. Bush pardoned 189 in 8 years. Nearly all were convicted felons who had been "clean" for decades. Clinton granted the more politically questionable pardons.

P.S.: It's interesting how this trend has changed. Truman issued over 5,000 full pardons. The number has gone down every year. http://www.justice.gov/pardon/actions_a ... ration.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty much the same thing has happened in Texas. Apparently pardons used to be more of a good-old-boy system before my time.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Good luck with that one right now. The present administration is not very likely to expunge any felony. Especially if it is a recent one.

For restoration of rights, a state conviction has to be expunged by the state government.

That would be the administration I was referring to. I personally know a 45 year old man who is being told to pound wood over a credit card theft/wilding episode when he was 18 years old. He has never comitted any offense after that... of any kind. Has a steady job... contributes to his comunity. You would never know this guy has this hanging over him. His attorney seems to believe the current State administration does not want to be seen as weak on crime.

I dunno... that is just my recent experience with the situation.

03Lightningrocks wrote:His attorney seems to believe the current State administration does not want to be seen as weak on crime.

That is probably true. It costs the governor nothing to turn down a pardon request; but every time he grants one, he takes a gamble on it turning out to be another Willie Horton.

- Jim

glock27 wrote:just curious, i have a friend of my brother who just got a felony for a non violent crime (evading). he is 21 are his 2A right completely gone or can he still own one in his home? what about protection under Motor vehicle protection act?

i would hate not to be able to carry a gun im just curious how screwed he is incase he has a home invasion or car invasion....


thaqnks
g27

You don't specify, but if his evading involved a motorized vehicle AT ANY POINT during the chase, then he is guilty of a Violent crime.

See recent SCOTUS ruling: Sykes v. United States, 09-11311

Synopsis:

Supreme Court: Fleeing police in car is a violent offense
Marcus Sykes receives sentencing enhancement for using car to escape cops
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says fleeing police custody in a vehicle can be considered a violent felony.

The high court made its ruling on Thursday in the case of Marcus Sykes.

Sykes was convicted of being a felon in possession of a handgun in 2008. Officials said he was subject to a sentencing enhancement because of two previous felony convictions, one of which was fleeing the police in a car in Indiana.

Sykes argued his fleeing conviction shouldn't be considered violent and two federal appeals courts, the 7th Circuit in Chicago and the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, have ruled in opposite ways.

The high court said in a 6-3 judgment that Sykes' flight from police can be considered a violent felony.

seamusTX wrote:A convicted felon cannot receive or possess a firearm other than an antique made before 1898 or reproduction of an antique that does not use modern cartridges.

See 18 usc 921(a)(16): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/u ... -000-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and 18 usc 922(g)(1) : http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also a felon cannot possess ammunition or body armor.

I heard about a case, a felon thought he was smart and had a revolver made before 1899, but it was a centerfire revolver (peacemaker I guess). He was okay on the gun but got busted for the ammo in the gun.