Posted on 12/07/2014 2:26:10 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine
The Trib may well have an agenda. I know that poster does.
/johnny
He is an underhanded devil. Coming to power with the help of only 11 Republicans, now some 35 are backing him, either based in promises or threats. The first time he paid off the Democrats by giving them all the committee chairmanships.
Like some on the national stage, he is a master of promises and threats.
/johnny
It depends upon how it is worded. If the bill calls for the state to prevent federal gun laws from being enforced by federal agents, they probably would have a problem. If the law prevents any state or local law enforcement personnel from enforcing federal gun control laws, they probably would be on safe legal ground - or so it seems to me.
Get this passed and then go for more.
The bottom line is that he is in power until he is no longer in power. We should celebrate the day when he is out, but until then...
/johnny
Therefore I don’t know how long it will be before the Political push to ban guns actually will one day be a reality in the generation to come....and the public will be already primed to accept it at that time.
And if that's not the spark that ignites the next Civil War, this nation is no longer deserving of its Founders' legacy.
In spite of the seditious degradation of the last couple of decades, we can only hope that heartland folks have managed to teach sense to enough kids to wage it, because most of us will likely be long gone by then.
It does remain to be seen...we can hop enough of todays parents teach their kids those values and their history....but I do have reservations this is happening even today....
So far, most of the firearms bills filed for this session have been ambiguous and contradictory. None of the bills mention the NFA, GCA, or 922(o) by name, one or two of the bills might nullify enforcement of those laws...but without changing the Texas Penal Code on Prohibited Weapons! Either this is just a feel-good measure to trick constituents into thinking that their State Reps are pro-2A, or this is just amazing incompetence by our State Reps.
Yep
What's unconstitutional about refusing to be part of the subversion of the Constitution?
My concern is that it's being put forward by a State that has laws keeping citizens from Constitutional Open Carry....
Either Second Amendment rights are absolute or they're not. And if you think they are not then why should it matter who regulates it?
/johnny
Rot gut is ALWAYS welcome... coffee is good too... for after!!!
Haha!
I will seek you out for guidance and further instruction in the finer points of those issues, my friend...
Thanks for the ping!
IMHO the 1934 and 1968 federal laws violate the 2nd Amendment and were passed in violation of procedures to be used to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court may have upheld some of these laws but I believe they erred.
The GCA actually contained an ex-post facto law by denying felons (who were convicted and sentenced prior to the law’s passing) the right to recover their 2A rights. Totally illegal, but they did it anyway. The whole law should be thrown out!
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.