TexasCHLforum.com

sbrawley wrote:Worst case scenario: the she-devil whose name will not be said wins the election and becomes the next POTUS. She somehow miraculously gets her way and abolishes or amends the 2nd Amendment resulting in a total ban of all guns within the United States.

Since every state is free and independent from the Federal government, each having their own constitutions, and some include a right to keep and bear arms (i.e. Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution), could the Federal government legally enforce an all out ban on guns within states that maintain their right to keep arms?

She cannot abolish or amend the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional process enacted through Congress, and then ratification state by state. It's extraordinarily difficult to do, and the founders made it that way on purpose.

What she CAN do is appoint Supreme Court justices who will interpret the Constitution the way she wants it interpreted, and she can use executive orders to enact policies that cut Congress out of the loop.....and then when Congress (or somebody) sues and takes it to court, her handpicked justices will uphold her actions.

I'm not worried. Why? Because we have a 2nd amendment, and then will be the time to use it. At some point, she's going to face trying to enforce her actions. Heck, that didn't even work in one state - Connecticut - a state that consistently votes leftist. People simply refused to turn in their "illegal" guns and magazines, the cops were afraid to enforce it, and they finally dropped the matter entirely. True, there are things you can't buy there anymore, but nobody is volunteering to stack up outside some gun owner's door and kick it in. Now, can you imagine what would happen if she tried that crap on Texas or Oklahoma?

Oh, she will wreck the country, but there are a lot of ways to do that. She can't and won't try a confiscation scheme. It would blow up in her face.

Maybe I misinformed but the Constitution does not grant us our rights protect our rights.

suthdj wrote:Maybe I misinformed but the Constitution does not grant us our rights protect our rights.

You're exactly correct. We have the right because we breathe. It's a human right. End of story. The degree to which a gov't hems in that right (or any other right) is the degree to which that gov't is repressive. The degree to which gov't is repressive is the degree to which it does not trust its own citizens. The degree to which gov't does not trust its citizens is the degree to which it views them as recalcitrants who need to be managed, lorded over, and protected from themselves. The degree to which gov't views its citizens as recalcitrants who need to be managed, lorded over, and protected from themselves is the degree to which that gov't is fascist.

None of those things describes the gov't created by our founders. Unfortunately, it very much describes the gov't we have today.

If you go against their wishes legal or not they just withd federal funding in other areas.

Since every state is free and independent from the Federal government

Interesting statement. And not quite right, I think.

Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution

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.

OlBill wrote:

Since every state is free and independent from the Federal government

Interesting statement. And not quite right, I think.

Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution

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.

So if the Senate were to ratify a treaty with Australia calling for the confiscation of American's guns...

warnmar10 wrote:

OlBill wrote:

Since every state is free and independent from the Federal government

Interesting statement. And not quite right, I think.

Article VI, Section 2 of the US Constitution

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.

So if the Senate were to ratify a treaty with Australia calling for the confiscation of American's guns...

Among other things.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Since every state is free and independent from the Federal government, each having their own constitutions, and some include a right to keep and bear arms (i.e. Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution), could the Federal government legally enforce an all out ban on guns within states that maintain their right to keep arms?

She cannot abolish or amend the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional process enacted through Congress, and then ratification state by state. It's extraordinarily difficult to do, and the founders made it that way on purpose.

1. The states are not independent of the federal government. Eleven states tried that in the 1860s, and it ended poorly. Federal law controls over contrary state law.

2. Second Amendment rights hang by one Supreme Court appointment. If any Democrat is elected to the presidency, the Second Amendment almost certainly becomes a dead letter.

Now the feds don't have the resources to go door to door to search for and seize guns. They could and well might order an Australian-like turn-in, but our compliance would likely be no better than was the Australians'. I would like to think Texas authorities and the authorities of many other states would not participate in the enforcement of such a law. But assume fatuously that no state authorities would participate. The feds could still deal us a death blow.

Imagine an Operation Choke Point on steriods. The feds could prohibit any federally insured financial institution (all of them since the S&L debacle of the 80s) from doing business with a manufacturer or seller of firearms or ammunition. So sellers of firearms or ammunition could have no bank accounts and could accept no credit or debit cards. Commerce in guns and ammunition as we know it would cease. A la Obama, they might try to do this without legislation.

We are on incredibly shaky ground,

KLB wrote: We are on incredibly shaky ground,

Keep this in mind come November...

Stock up on guns and Ammo NOW

KLB wrote:

sbrawley wrote:Since every state is free and independent from the Federal government, each having their own constitutions, and some include a right to keep and bear arms (i.e. Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution), could the Federal government legally enforce an all out ban on guns within states that maintain their right to keep arms?

She cannot abolish or amend the 2nd amendment or any other part of the Constitution. That requires a Constitutional process enacted through Congress, and then ratification state by state. It's extraordinarily difficult to do, and the founders made it that way on purpose.

1. The states are not independent of the federal government. Eleven states tried that in the 1860s, and it ended poorly. Federal law controls over contrary state law.

2. Second Amendment rights hang by one Supreme Court appointment. If any Democrat is elected to the presidency, the Second Amendment almost certainly becomes a dead letter.

Now the feds don't have the resources to go door to door to search for and seize guns. They could and well might order an Australian-like turn-in, but our compliance would likely be no better than was the Australians'. I would like to think Texas authorities and the authorities of many other states would not participate in the enforcement of such a law. But assume fatuously that no state authorities would participate. The feds could still deal us a death blow.

Imagine an Operation Choke Point on steriods. The feds could prohibit any federally insured financial institution (all of them since the S&L debacle of the 80s) from doing business with a manufacturer or seller of firearms or ammunition. So sellers of firearms or ammunition could have no bank accounts and could accept no credit or debit cards. Commerce in guns and ammunition as we know it would cease. A la Obama, they might try to do this without legislation.

We are on incredibly shaky ground,

That wasn't me you were quoting. It was the OP, sbrawley. I have edited the above to show that.

Sorry for the error.

Good article from Paul Howe regarding the possibility of overturning the 2nd Amendment.
I think it illustrates the difficulty the left would have in trying to enforce this.

http://blog.wilsoncombat.com/paul-howe/ ... paul-howe/

KLB wrote:Sorry for the error.

No problem. I just thought you'd want to know.