Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Texas Proposal: JAIL Any Federal Officials Trying to Enforce New Gun Restrictions in the State
WOAI Radio ^ | 1/15/2013 | Jim Forsyth

Posted on 01/15/2013 11:50:28 AM PST by Ironfocus

A Texas lawmaker says he plans to file the Firearms Protection Act, which would make any federal laws that may be passed by Congress or imposed by Presidential order which would ban or restrict ownership of semi-automatic firearms or limit the size of gun magazines illegal in the state, 1200 WOAI news reports.

Republican Rep. Steve Toth says his measure also calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce the rule in the state.

"If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution," Toth told 1200 WOAI's Joe Pags Tuesday. He says his bill would make attempting to enforce a federal gun ban in Texas punishable by a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison.

Toth says he will file his measure after speaking with the state's Republican Attorney General, Greg Abbott, who has already vowed to fight any federal measures which call for restrictions on weapons possession.

Toth concedes that he would welcome a legal fight over his proposals.

"At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause," he said.

The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'

"It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama," Toth said.

Texas is the second state to propose a measure to shield the state from the impact of any gun possession restrictions imposed by Congress or by Presidential order. A similar measure was introduced in Wyoming last week.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: Alabama; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: banglist; donttreadonme; federal; guncontrol; nocompromise; secondamendment; texas; wewillnotcomply; youwillnotdisarmus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Ironfocus

Wyoming was the first state to take this stance. Texas makes #2. Tennessee is next in line,,,


21 posted on 01/15/2013 12:10:31 PM PST by EXCH54FE (Hurricane 416)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Guilty...


22 posted on 01/15/2013 12:11:13 PM PST by Ironfocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Hopefully followed by many more.


23 posted on 01/15/2013 12:13:05 PM PST by Ironfocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred; sunny48; All
LOL!
not enough BACON *statement/really*
..Is that the 1st serving.. 2nd?

24 posted on 01/15/2013 12:13:13 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus
We need to see more states follow. I think Conservatives throughout our government need to fight this, and speak out against this unconstitutional attack on our right to bear arms. Some so-called Conservatives are way too quite.

www.OathKeepers.org

25 posted on 01/15/2013 12:15:40 PM PST by ThermoNuclearWarrior (www.OathKeepers.org/oath/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

Fire back twice as much legislation as they propose to restrict gun ownership and wear them out! In fact use Alinsky’s own rules against them and pull out the stops on push the historical truth on them citing past disarmament if citizens, how different and much better our civilization and form of government (up until now) has been made because of them, how the media ignores the positive effects of gun ownership, the crime prevention aspect, and unskewed truth; that most of the gun incidents have involved liberal idiots with mental health issues; that when properly trained adults (usually with Christian values) use them there seems to be no problems. Liberals can’t handle the truth (the real unbiased truth as untold by the media). And while we’re proposing new legislation I say we push for the Media Anti-Propaganda and Disinformation Act that says if a news media organization is determined to promote material that can be blatantly determined to be false, Intentionally misleading, and / or skewed for with intent to cause harm to the citizens of the United States of American or alter the Constitution or it’s amendments for the purposes of subversion with hostile intent by af oreign government / power or its agents that it’s officers / principals, or specific employees engaged in said acts can be charged with acts of treason with criminal and civil penalties...: )


26 posted on 01/15/2013 12:16:35 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus

Texas and Wyoming will tell the Feds no way Jose. Look this has been the plan all along by the Imperialist Obama - render the freedoms of the American People worthless and guess what America ceases to exist.

Looking at the education that Obama received - It is aaparent that his college records and transcripts are sealed because he took every course he could on Marxist,and Communist Political Thought. In addition he took courses on the theories of political thought - liberal democracy, deliberative democracy and the usage of decrees (executive orders) to change a country. Yes Obama studied political thought that came out of Russia, Guatemala, and Peru.

I honestly believe he studied what Alberto Fujimori strived to achieve in Peru. Obama has the accomplice media, the hysteria in Europe and the democrats whom will help him to achieve his goal


27 posted on 01/15/2013 12:16:44 PM PST by hondact200 (Candor dat viribos alas (sincerity gives wings to strength) and Nil desperandum (never despair))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sunny48

Damn I love you...BACON for all!!!


28 posted on 01/15/2013 12:17:40 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus

Wow! Did he really say King Obama?


29 posted on 01/15/2013 12:17:53 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean
"what’s for dessert?"
the eggs; then the Bacon snacking begins...ALLAH ACKBAR!

30 posted on 01/15/2013 12:18:36 PM PST by skinkinthegrass (who'll take tomorrow,spend it all today;who can take your income,tax it all away..0'Bozo man can :-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sunny48

That breakfast is way out of balance.

For God’s sake...only TWO slices of toast!

Three is just bad for you.


31 posted on 01/15/2013 12:20:35 PM PST by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Arkansas too.


32 posted on 01/15/2013 12:24:37 PM PST by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus

Under color of authority: A legal phrase used in the United States indicating a person is claiming or implying the acts he or she is committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power, especially if the acts are unlawful.

I would agree that any crime by federal officials pretending they have the authority to infringe upon our individual right to keep and bear arms should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. As a juror, I would send the jack-booted thug responsible for such a crime to maximum security for the longest lawful sentence. “I was just following orders” is not an acceptable excuse - neither from the agent on the street or the immediate subordinate of the petty tyrant issuing an executive order for a gun grab.


33 posted on 01/15/2013 12:26:54 PM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus

It’s going to be a seriously screwed up Summer.


34 posted on 01/15/2013 12:29:29 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Do federal law enforcement agents not have to swear to uphold the Constitution? If they are, then they are breaking their oath of office, just like His Lordship, and they should face the full consequences of such an action.


35 posted on 01/15/2013 12:30:01 PM PST by Ironfocus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus
Photobucket
36 posted on 01/15/2013 12:35:15 PM PST by baddog 219
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus

FBI oath of office

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation
freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of
the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.


37 posted on 01/15/2013 12:35:37 PM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sunny48

Thought there were rules about posting porn.....

The shapely curve of the fine wooden stocks, the redolent aroma from the bountiful plate, the glistening sheen of butter and albumen......

Don’t take adulterants in coffee.....

Cheers


38 posted on 01/15/2013 12:37:08 PM PST by petro45acp (More sheepdogs please...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bigheadfred

“-—make a spare wind chime “——OOOORRRR breakfast. The only differences between that guys breakfast and mine are he’s gotta scramble that egg and he only has one pistol. But the Texas move does put a bright underline under “-—shall NOT be infringed”.


39 posted on 01/15/2013 12:39:09 PM PST by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ironfocus
The Supremacy Clause is the portion of the Constitution which declares that federal laws and statutes are 'the supreme law of the land.'

Where is this in the Constitution? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and federal statutes are subject to the limitations in the Constitution.

Also, there is a federal law that states federal officials can have their criminal cases removed to federal court if arrested by a state law enforcement agency during the performance of their official duties. Not sure how the Feds could force a state to release an accused federal official if the state refused to do so.

40 posted on 01/15/2013 12:39:09 PM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson