I suspect that this bill might fail if it is as absolute as the headline. I like its spirit, but I question its Constitutionality.
“...but I question its Constitutionality.”
Constitution? We still have one of those?
“Shall not be infringed” is absolute.
...I question its Constitutionality.
___
Sounds like it would merely reinforce what the 2nd amendment already clearly states.
In what way might it fail Constitutional muster. There are numerous examples whereby the supreme court has let stand more expansive intpretations of state constitutional protections. The Constitution is the floor for rights, not a ceiling, and other states have had state constitutions that were even more broadly defined and interpreted. The supreme court is largely in business to maintain that floor, not to argue that it is the limit of our rights as human beings.
If the state of Texas were to interpret its constitution to mean that any restrictions on gun ownership was unconstitutional, they'd have an interestinhg leg to stand on. All they have to do is start to argue the right in terms of the first amendment.
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.
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....
State or Federal Constitutionality???
This bill is a longshot to get though all the different committees needing to have their hands in it before it is even considered to be put on the calendar for a final reading and vote on the floor next year...
Also, Joe Strauss will never let this bill on the calendar for that part of the process...He is known for not allowing bills like this to advance...
Dan Patrick is also a bit wishy-washy on Second Amendment issues...
That’s two strikes right there...
For this to happen as well would entail too many changes to the Texas Penal code as is now...It may negate a lot of what we have now on the books that have been fairly successful since 1995...
Strike three...
Now, before anyone assumes I am not supportive of an expansion, or better yet a reduction/removal of any and all restrictions and infringements still keeping us in the state of Texas from a Constitutional carry status...I’ll tell you right now you would be wrong...Period...
I believe Texas is in good shape as far as Second Amendment issues are concerned...Sure, some tweeks could be made, and there are some coming down the pipe this next session...This is an interesting bill, and will be given some scrutiny...Who knows, it may get some steam up and make a splash...You never know...But I have seen some others, like this, being kicked around over the last 15 some odd years, and those committees, and the leadership have been known to squash bills like this regularly, despite the promising “public (special group) interest” nature of the potential outcome...
We shall see...