State vs. Fed: A Page From the Liberal Playbook

[sodchemist]

Here's an idea that might be worth discussing: suppose Feinstein's ban passes, or Obama issues an executive order. Should we (Texans) then quickly pass state laws that explicitly state the legality of assault weapons, and hi-cap mags, and then ignore the feds, as a state. This would be analogous to the new pot laws that were recently passed in the state of Washington. WA state has legalized recreational pot, even though Federal narcotic laws still prohibit its recreational growth, use and sale. Washingtonians don't care, and the Feds aren't going to enforce their laws and bust the pot smokers in WA. Perhaps a similar thing can happen with Gun laws. I think its possible if the ban or restriction is an executive order. It might be easiest for us to start to fight back locally! This seems to be the most reasonable and possibly most effective form of resistance.

[jollyman]

Here's an idea that might be worth discussing: suppose Feinstein's ban passes, or Obama issues an executive order. Should we (Texans) then quickly pass state laws that explicitly state the legality of assault weapons, and hi-cap mags, and then ignore the feds, as a state. This would be analogous to the new pot laws that were recently passed in the state of Washington. WA state has legalized recreational pot, even though Federal narcotic laws still prohibit its recreational growth, use and sale. Washingtonians don't care, and the Feds aren't going to enforce their laws and bust the pot smokers in WA. Perhaps a similar thing can happen with Gun laws. I think its possible if the ban or restriction is an executive order. It might be easiest for us to start to fight back locally! This seems to be the most reasonable and possibly most effective form of resistance.

[newTexan]

As a possible fallback position, I can see it as an option although I suspect the Fed will be much more inclined to fight for gun "control" than drugs.

I still believe that we can defeat this in Congress, even if it's a tough fight. While the media and the left (but I repeat myself) may demonize guns, I am hopeful that with the NRA and the support of gun-owning constituents behind them, our Congressmen and Senators will do the right thing. Maybe I'm just too optimistic on that, but I do think that if we push them, we can beat this, especially after seeing how monstrous the bill is likely to be.

[nightmare]

There may be unintended consequences for passing those laws.

[Bennies]

Montana has already passed laws for full autos and supressors no?They just stamp "made in Montana" on them and keep them intrastate. Or did that get shut down by the Feds?

[sodchemist]

You are right (according to the internet)!

I found this link:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009 ... eedom-act/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But even better, a similar bill was introduced in Texas (House BIll No 1863) in 2009.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81 ... 01863I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The rationale behind these bills is that as long as the firearm is made in the state, and does not leave the state, that federal (commerce) laws don't apply. It doesn't appear that the Texas bill was voted on. Maybe we need to change that!

[77346]

interesting... and with some manufacturers looking for new homes (see link below re:Armalite), Texas could be the ideal place for them to move: strong economy, gun-loving culture, large population=large market, proximity to Mexico for Fast & Furious type exports

http://www.kmov.com/news/editors-pick/I ... 74731.html

[Jumping Frog]

Montana has already passed laws for full autos and supressors no?They just stamp "made in Montana" on them and keep them intrastate. Or did that get shut down by the Feds?

That is a conviction waiting to happen to some poor sucker.

BATFE already notified all the FFL's in Montana that regardless of Montana law, they are still subject to federal law.

[Jumping Frog]

Should we (Texans) then quickly pass state laws that explicitly state the legality of assault weapons, and hi-cap mags, and then ignore the feds, as a state.

Completely ineffective.

Regardless of what laws Texas passes, they will have zero impact on the feds and be nullified in federal court.

Ever hear of Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution? It is also known as the Supremacy Clause.

For readers unfamiliar with the text, it says:

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 courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law

See Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).

Any legislator trying to pass this is simply demonstrating their complete ignorance of the US Constitution, or they are knowingly pandering to the ignorant by passing a law that sounds good but they are fully aware is useless.

[sodchemist]

well, citing the supremacy clause of the constitution is sort of ironic. i mean, if politicians wanted to obey and enforce the constitution, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion on banning or confiscating guns. but nonetheless, the issue is: would a federal firearms law be easily enforced in a state that wished to pass a different type of law? would the enforcement of such a law be inhibited by not having state and local police help catch or report any lawbreakers? this type of orthogonal relationship is what now exists in washington state with the pot law. if a WA state trooper pulls someone over and finds some pot, he cannot write a ticket or charge the person with a state crime, because possessing pot is no longer a state crime. will he call the dea or fbi? who knows.

[mr surveyor]

well, citing the supremacy clause of the constitution is sort of ironic. i mean, if politicians wanted to obey and enforce the constitution, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion on banning or confiscating guns. but nonetheless, the issue is: would a federal firearms law be easily enforced in a state that wished to pass a different type of law? would the enforcement of such a law be inhibited by not having state and local police help catch or report any lawbreakers? this type of orthogonal relationship is what now exists in washington state with the pot law. if a WA state trooper pulls someone over and finds some pot, he cannot write a ticket or charge the person with a state crime, because possessing pot is no longer a state crime. will he call the dea or fbi? who knows.

and.... what makes that any different than the silly "sanctuary cities"?

[JALLEN]

well, citing the supremacy clause of the constitution is sort of ironic. i mean, if politicians wanted to obey and enforce the constitution, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion on banning or confiscating guns. but nonetheless, the issue is: would a federal firearms law be easily enforced in a state that wished to pass a different type of law? would the enforcement of such a law be inhibited by not having state and local police help catch or report any lawbreakers? this type of orthogonal relationship is what now exists in washington state with the pot law. if a WA state trooper pulls someone over and finds some pot, he cannot write a ticket or charge the person with a state crime, because possessing pot is no longer a state crime. will he call the dea or fbi? who knows.

and.... what makes that any different than the silly "sanctuary cities"?

In those cities, and in the states defying the marijuana laws, the difference is that the Feds have signaled they are more or less sympathetic, and will not act to enforce Federal law. Even though Congress has not changed the laws, if the executive branch won't move to enforce them, it's like they don't exist. Ask Arizona, Texas about it. Immigration laws mean nothing to the indifferent or worse Feds.

[Charles L. Cotton]

well, citing the supremacy clause of the constitution is sort of ironic. i mean, if politicians wanted to obey and enforce the constitution, then we wouldn't even be having a discussion on banning or confiscating guns. but nonetheless, the issue is: would a federal firearms law be easily enforced in a state that wished to pass a different type of law? would the enforcement of such a law be inhibited by not having state and local police help catch or report any lawbreakers? this type of orthogonal relationship is what now exists in washington state with the pot law. if a WA state trooper pulls someone over and finds some pot, he cannot write a ticket or charge the person with a state crime, because possessing pot is no longer a state crime. will he call the dea or fbi? who knows.

Convictions would be easy. Feds would make the arrests and the defendants would be prosecuted in federal courts.

These laws are not only ineffective, they invite the uninformed to violate federal law, get a felony conviction, then go to prison.

Chas.

[anygunanywhere]

At some point in the not too distant future the three branches of the government will have to decide if they are going to govern according to the constitution or totally ignore the constitution. They cannot have it both ways.

Anygunanywhere

[sjfcontrol]

At some point in the not too distant future the three branches of the government will have to decide if they are going to govern according to the constitution or totally ignore the constitution. They cannot have it both ways.

Anygunanywhere

Seems to me the decision's already been made.