BUMP!
EXCELLENT!!!
I suspect that this bill might fail if it is as absolute as the headline. I like its spirit, but I question its Constitutionality.
1. “Sanctuary Cities” - Numerous cities simply decided they didn’t like some federal laws. They refuse to enforce them.
2. Pot-head Cities - ditto.
3. Dictator Prez - Digs homo marriage, hates numerous other laws. They bum him out, so he orders people not to enforce them. They’re yucky and not groovy, so THERE.
SO:
WHY NOT THIS ALSO...??
Hope it passes!
Several Open Carry bills up to0. We’ll see. Dems have manage to kill several pro Second Amendment bills in the past.
Doesn’t go far enough.
This will not get anywhere, and he knows it, because of one guy. Joe Straus, the speaker of the Texas House, is only nominally a Republican. He became speaker with a small group of Republican liberals, and all the Democrats voting for him.
He is against any gun liberty, he is pro-abortion, he is opposed to conservative anything. And he was just reelected by an even larger minority of Republican liberals and all the Democrats again.
He is the guy preventing Texans from open carry. He is an obstacle to any substantial reform in Texas. He is a pest.
...”the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.
/johnny
God bless Texas!
For our Texas pal...photo taken high in the Andes of Colombia....note the tag on the back of the bus LOL
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae274/rrrod3/colombia%2012-13/242_zpsc66963b3.jpg
Otherwise, here is one of the stronger anti-federal government personal defense arms control excerpts that I’m aware of from a Supreme Court case opinion.
"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called [emphasis added], in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." —United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.
The problem with modern interpretations of 2A is the following imo. Most of us have grown up under a corrupt federal government, consequently wrongly thinking that the actions and policies of the feds are unquestionably constitutional.
Regarding federal laws which regulate arms for personal defense use for example, based on my current understanding of the history of such laws, please note the following. Such laws seem not to have appeared in the books until the time of FDR, Constitution-ignoring FDR and his corrupt Congress notorious for making laws outside the scope of Congress’s Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
The incessant pressures for gun control are the same as the relentless pressures for “immigration reform”. Both are reminiscent of villains in the horror movies that will not die.
Connected elites, crony capitalists, and MSM have their perpetual hooks in Congress looking for their favors and handouts. They combine with a large uniformed segment of America also looking for handouts.
Phony benevolent elites in society will always promote disarming the masses, because it will minimize any perception by their peers in power that masses should have political power. Self defense always equals political power. Elites prefer unilateral power.
HOORAY Matthew Krause (R-Ft. Worth) Krause for President!
How about “past, present or future” politicians having the debt distributed amongst themselves and all assets seized until there are low taxes and surpluses, so that generations are not debt-slaves to National Socialists.
YES!
Perhaps Mr. Krause should first repeal all Texas laws limiting who can own firearms and where they can take them before he goes after the federal laws. At least those he can legally deal with.
Get this passed and then go for more.
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.
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.
For later...
