Shared publicly  - 
Under a measure advancing in the Texas Capitol, local police officers could be convicted of a crime for enforcing any new federal gun control laws.
Ashley Hensley's profile photoShawn DeCandia's profile photoDave Molhoek's profile photorob mason's profile photo
Will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court has to say about this. Regardless of what political stances these "lawmakers" take, the Federal Government really is their boss.
What does it say about the state of our country as a whole when individual states begin to legislate against the federal gov'ts continued  effort to exact control over every aspect of life as we know it?
The fed gov't has very specific and limited powers under the constitution. All other duties are left to the states and the people. We need to return to that simple principle of law.
The purpose of the federal government is not to tell the states what to do.  The purpose of the federal government is to act within the Constitution.  All powers not explicitly granted to the the federal government by the Constitution are reserved by the states and the people.  It's in the 10th amendment.
Why you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.
-Indigo Montoya
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to rule on whether laws are legal under the Constitution, not keep the states in line with the dictum of the federal government.
Even if it passes, the inevitable legal challenge will crush it. This is a freshman lawmaker looking for high fives from his good ole boys
+Daniel Woodworth My point is that the federal government is not supposed to punish states when they don't follow 'orders'.  The Supreme Court is one of the checks that makes sure the government does not overstep its bounds.  Lately, they haven't been doing that but the idea is a nice one.
I think it would be great if all the states told the federal government to go take a leap on this and several other areas. They are far to big for (our) own good.
It doesn't matter what the constitution says, it matters what it can be made to look like. Interpretation is more powerful. 
'It doesn't matter what the constitution says' .. Then why do we have a Constitution?
+Michael Washington which is why we are in such a mess in general. It's been a long time since our government actually followed the constitution. 
+Rob Young
But then states like Texas would fall apart without federal aide in the billions to close their budget deficits
Texas is just as stupid as everybody thinks it is. You can't legally arrest a police officer for enforcing the law. any arrest would quickly be overturned quickly. Might I add that the US Supreme Court ruled in Printz v. United States that local and state law enforcement do NOT HAVE to enforce federal laws, anyway. Texas needs to realize it is not its own country and it damn sure isn't more powerful than the federal government. 
If a law is not constitutional, then it is illegal to enforce it.
+Akemi Mokoto again you should read the constitution because the states are more powerful that the federal government, the states have just given away their power through the years 
Michael Washington trolling a Fox News post. I'm shocked I tell ya, shocked!
+Ken Tobey I actually hope this works. I really do. It won't, but if a state could actually successfully stand up to the Federal Government this would cause a cascade of other solutions to problems. 

It won't actually work, but it would be nice if it did. 
+James Riley Correct!  And the people are more powerful than the states.  The government derives power through the consent of the governed.
Through consent of the majority of people, not just "people". If the majority of people disagree with you, then you're SOL. 
+James Riley While the constitution does give states the right not to follow federal regulations ( the Tenth Amendment,) the feds have the right to provide incentives or withhold federal funds to the state to influence them to adopt it (South Dakota v. Dole) . Texas would be in serious trouble if the Feds would do that 
A simple majority is not enough.  That's why we have two houses of Congress.  That's why we have an electoral college.  That's why it takes 3/5 of the states to change the Constitution. 
+Michael Washington You do have a point on majority rule. Unless of course if you live in Iowa where the supreme court can just make up things as they go, such as gay marriage (which I am not necessarily against, but it was definitely gone about the wrong way).
+Douglas Starnes yes, but it only takes a simple majority of voters two vote in a congressman that I may not agree with, or to put all the electoral votes for my state toward a candidate I didn't vote for. How does that help me when my elected officials aren't those whom I would choose. The systems is not in anyway perfect and even the checks and balances don't always protect us. 
Only stupid people make broad-based claims like "Texas is as stupid as everybody thinks it is."  I don't live there, but know a lot of very smart Texans.  Get off your high horse Akemi, your sh*t stinks just like everyone else's.
I do live there and there are a lot of stupid Texans but they tend to vote Democrat. There are a lot more smart Texans.
Chris G
Texas is not a state. It is it's own republic annexed by treaty. They make sure they can function independently. They don't need federal aid. The rest of the country needs Texas oil and electrical power. Also, the constitution provides for states to make their own laws. If they make a law that states that anyone trying to unforced an unconstitutional law like gun control, they are well within their rights to do so.
If Texas wants to do their own thing, who are you to stop them. .. Colorado passes laws so they can all get stoned if they want. Even the city of N.Y. passes laws that say you can only have a 16oz coke. If thats what they want its really none of anyone elses business as long as no ones constitutional rights are being broken... screw the feds. 

BTW.. I dissagree with the mayer of NY telling people they can only have a 16oz coke.. and i will be there in a week or so, so when im in manhattan, I will buy 2 cokes and walk down the street and drink them both..
Chris G
+Michael Washington exactly. Then at that point, the Supreme Court will have to rule gun control as unconstitutional. That's the point.
+Chris G Gun control is not unconstitutional. You can think otherwise all you'd like, but it doesn't make you right and doesn't change the supreme court rulings on the subject.

Also, a legislative branch declaring a law to be unconstitutional is a violation of the separation of powers. It is not within the scope of a legislatures power to say what is, and isn't, constitutional. That's the judicial branch's job.

And as for statehood: Texas was, once, a republic. It was then voluntarily annexed into the US and admitted as a state at which point it became one of the (now) 50 states. Texas is a state like any other with the same rights, responsibilities, and powers.
Instead of trying to pass such a controversial law, perhaps states should just just use....what's the term? oh, yeah, prosecutorial discretion when deciding which laws to enforce. That is the standard set by the federal government, so should be fine for states to use it as well.
+Douglas Starnes The executive branches have a duty to enforce the law as long as it is in effect, constitutional or not. They aren't the ones who make that determination, the courts are. Marbury v. Madison.

Also, no current or proposed gun control law even approaches the line of un constitutionality. Not even close. 
+Chris G while I agree from a constitutional point of vew, I would not count on this court to rule with any kind of common sence, i.e  obama care.
Chris G
+Stephen Baird , the whole point of this is that Texas believes that gun control is unconstitutional. Whether is is or not, this action will force the Supreme Court to make that determination.
+Mike Heavin maybe the federal government should focus on trade, common defence, paying down our national debt.. let the states do what they want. it not their business what texas does unless texas is violating someones constitutional rights.
+Chris G No, it won't... It will get an injunction from the federal district court which will be upheld the by the court of appeals and the supreme court will decline to hear it because it's an easy and obvious case which the lower courts got right and isn't something the supreme court needs to address.

If a LOT of states try this the supreme court may hear them all at once as a way of setting clear national precedent that state legislatures don't get to try to countermand federal law.

The gun control issues tangentially presented by this have already been allowed in previous supreme court precedent and the Court isn't in the habit of wasting its time reaffirming its own precedent in simple cases that lower courts got right. 
+Ron Morgan I agree. My point was that a state could just use the tool that Obama used with immigration. A state could just use prosecutorial discretion to assign a very low priority to gun possession. If a police officer happens to see someone with a so-called "assault" weapon, they wouldn't need to arrest them, because prosecution of that offense would not be a priority.

Also, I do not believe it is the state's responsibility to enforce federal laws.
+Mike Heavin A state could try that, but not only do I expect it to work about as well as Obama's attempt to do the same thing with immigration enforcement (hint: it didn't do a thing), it ignores the fact that there are federal agencies tasked with enforcing these laws too. So instead of dealing with the local cops and the state courts you'll be dealing with the feds instead. So nothing really changes.

It may not be the state's responsibility to enforce federal laws, but they sure can. That has been established a number of times. 
+John Tingle What an insightful interpretation of the second amendment. It's just too bad no court ever has agreed with you that it makes guns a state issue, and that the current (and very recent) interpretation of it by the supreme court (which means this is what it means, for all legal intents and purposes) is that the second amendment allows for the outright ban of certain specially dangerous types of guns, allows background checks, waiting periods, and the outright ban of certain specially dangerous classes of people from owning guns. 
Also, +John Tingle - the bolded "free state" bit does not refer to "the states" as you seem to be implying but the entire country as conceptualized as "the state". 
+John Tingle while I agree with Second Amendment, it seems it's being applied to all sorts of weapons that the founding fathers never imagined, and I believe that's what Washington is trying to emphasize.. While I agree if you don't like those laws get out of the state which allow it openly. But that state should make sure those guns don't leave that state then. 
+Chris G I find it important that Texas is a republic, but to overly assume that Texas doesn't need any federal funding is foolish, try pulling out federally funded military bases and personal and see what happens to theTexas economy, analyst concluded Texas would be in the top 3 hardest hit states if the sequestration happens 
I guess there is still that "Confederate Attitude out there"
+Jay Carlson How is that an idiotic remark? If you continue to think that States laws can supersede Federal law that has jurisdiction... You have a confederate mindset
+Douglas Starnes: "the people are more powerful than the states.  The government derives power through the consent of the governed."

  ...well, at least we are in theory.  It seems we've ceded more and more power (or consent) to ever more encroaching politicians.
real good point there +Nirav Patel got him You're probably one of those that think the second amendment was for muskets only. Then freedom of speech only applies to shouting in the town hall and writing on parchment with a quill pen.
+Douglas Starnes, close: 3/4 of the States, not 3/5.   But in any case, a lot more than a simple majority, and even larger a fraction of Congresspeople than necessary for a veto override.
+Nirav Patel and everyone else even thinking this claim - Texas can call itself whatever it wants, Republic, commonwealth, state, empire, it doesn't matter. If the label is correct it just tells you about their internal organization, and if it's not correct it's just a name.

All states, no matter what they call themselves, stand in exactly the same position before the federal government. The fact that Texas calls itself a republic makes zero difference in anything other than their stationary. 
+Orion McClurg _We the PEOPLE_ voted for that Federal Government so that Federal Government is acting in the interest of the majority that voted for them. 
+Orion McClurg You're owned as chattel by the federal government and being made to work for them without pay? That's awful and needs to be stopped immediately!

Oh, wait... Words have meanings, and you really shouldn't bandy them about while completely ignoring that fact... 
I love Texas. Louisiana just passed a bill in the last election that grants a gun rights statute in the states constitution that supersedes any federal regulation.

illegal? possibly. but fuck you Louisiana doesn't care.
+Jim Deatherage Negative Jim I don't believe only for muskets, I think we should apply it to today's world. Most people never left their state some never left their towns. Now someone can buy a gun in Texas and bring guns to other states. If we had one system of background checks, we can at least try limiting the tragedies that take place 
+Paris Mosley Yes, in light of the Constitution it's an ignorant remark. You might want to reread the Tenth Amendment a couple of times till you get it.
+Jay Carlson if you look into the founding father the biggest advocates for guns and states rights were Jefferson and Madison. Both who owned massive plantations and feared that the other members were going to force them to abolish slavery like they were doing in their own states.. 
+Zander Gavin State anything can't supercede federal anything. We're a federal republic. The federal government is supreme. 
+Jay Carlson The tenth amendment grants no power and has never been recognized as granting any power, it's just a flow over provision.
+Stephen Baird 

Look around jackass. MORE and MORE states are passing laws that are superseding federal laws. The states and the people have lost respect for the federal government, and are no longer trusting in their ability to govern.

the States, just don't care, and so they will do as they please. Louisiana also already stated its stance against ObamaCare. as Many others have as well. Welcome to the Future. The War gets closer everyday.

Washington and Colorado legalized Marijuana. Also going against Federal laws.
+Zander Gavin in many other articles you always reference civil war again. I'm not sure if you know who won last time lol 
correct me if im wrong, but most state constitutions have their own "2nd" amendment? as long as the states bill of rights does not infringe on us constitution there isnt anything the feds can or should do about it. Texas is within its rights.

as far as the US constitution, the 2nd amendment is pretty cut and dry and plain english. only a lawyer would try to argue with it..
+Zander Gavin Read the constitution, specifically the supremacy clause. The fact that states pass these things is basically meaningless, the supremacy clause renders them without effect.

Michigan legalized medical marijuana, but people here are still being federally prosecuted for it. Why? Because of the supremacy clause. 
+Stephen Baird 


The federal government has been DANCING on top of the constitution. Are you so blind as to see Obama doesn't give a shit what's in it or what it stands for?

HE doesn't care, so why should the states. Answer? They Don't and so they are resorting to governing themselves regardless of what the dictator and his regime wants
+Ron Morgan That is not the debate. Texas is saying that they will not accept any federal law that puts restrictions on guns from the Federal government. The law Texas is trying to pass will be illegal
+Michael Washington Hmmm... according to Webster, infringe means: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"...  seems to me that "shall not be infringed" means shall not encroach. Yes, gun control is clearly unconstitutional re. second amendment...
+Stephen Baird meaningless.. unless its in line with what the current adminastrations intermatation of whatever law they happen to fancy...
+Ron Morgan I'm sorry Ron it's not in plain English. English was spoken, written, and interpreted differently then. 
+Zander Gavin Are you legitimately insane, or just willfully ignorant? Because nothing you've just posted has any basis in fact or reality. 
+Nirav Patel dude.. its like the shortest amendment..the last sentance is " the right to own and bare arms shall not be infringed" .. there is nothing to interpert. they ment for the citizen to be armed if he so chose to be. the reason the suprem court doesnt hear more cases is because there is not much to interpret there. its not like the 1st or 4th amendments.

people that dont like the 2nd, usually fall back to "back then they had muskets" which is true.. however that is what an invading army would have had as well. that is what was intended, that a citizen could protect themselfs and their property from invading armys or domestic bad guys. 

it is simple. if you want more back ground checks.. fine. but shall not be infringed is plane as plane can be.
+Ron Morgan You're skipping the "well regulated militia" part, and overlooking the historical fact that the restrictions and requirements for gun owners were absurdly far beyond even the wildest dreams of gun control advocates today.

History exists and you can't ignore it by replacing it with what you think happened. 
+Ron Morgan I'm all for second Amendment, and for more background checks., but a comma made a huge difference on interpretation. I was just pointing out that it's not plain English. Foreign army's were fought off by organized militia 
+Paris Mosley i believe it would only be illeagel if the feds change the 2nd amendment. right now  they are saying we are not going to abide by any new laws..and as far as I know no fed laws have been changed.. the point is moot till then.
IF it's considered CONFEDERATE to stand against a tyrannical totalitarian government then SO BE IT.
+Nirav Patel You seem to not understand the concept of Federalism and States Rights. What was agreed upon by the Founders was a framework for a Federal Government to Provide a National Defense against common enemies, and to enforce contracts between states, settle disputes between states, and prevent interstate trade wars. The states were to retain their sovereignty. The Founders understood the propensity of governments, however benevolent in the beginning to centralize more and more power to the detriment of the governed.
+Zander Gavin 

Patriots my Friend. not Confederates. You say confederate and idiot liberals want to pounce on unfounded claims of racism. Still clinging to a false belief in public school taught history.

You claim to be a Patriot, and they realize you stand FOR the Constitution, and thus they will have no ammo against you except to say you are an Uneducated Republican Racist. Despite all evidence to the contrary.
+Jay Carlson while I can imagine why you look at that way. A common enemy for many citizens are lack of background checks for guns. Secondly I look at actions of founding fathers such as when GW marched on Pennsylvania to enforce the whisky tax with his army because it was for the country.

+James Spedale while I consider myself to be centrist I have some liberal views, that doesn't make me an idiot or unpatriotic, but I like to defend the constitution by being a realist. Not a fundamentalist. We as a country are in a war with fundamentalist, we want them to be progressive and moderate while many of us cannot apply it at home. 
They don't understand the meaning of the word Confederate and are probably ignorant of the Articles of Confederation.
+Nirav Patel 

Having liberal ideas doesn't make you an idiot, nor was he saying that. Now if you think some one is racist just because they don't support a president who happens to be black; THAT would make you an idiot.
+Daniel Woodworth 

Conservatives understand that. But we have a tyrant who short changes our allies, whilst giving fuck tons of cash and weapons to our enemies.

Is it any wonder he seeks to strip our defenses?
+Zander Gavin agreed, I just didn't feel his message was clear as you stated.. Your getting your first +1 from me lol 
+Daniel Woodworth So why can't I buy a tank or rocket launcher? Where in any supreme court rulings that states the federal government can not regulated the firearm market?
+Stephen Baird wait, are you saying it was harder to own a gun in 17 and 1800's? im not sure i understand what your point is? not being sarcastic, forgive me I just dont understand what your sayng.

I left out the "well regulated militia" because that is open to interprate. the shall not be infrenged part really isnt.
Wow. You are really trying to stretch things. South Carolina (or any other state, this is just an example) knew that they could not defend themselves against an attack by, say Spain. However under the Constitution such an attack would be an attack against all the states and the states would be united in a response. United States. This has nothing to do with whatever political fad happens to be floating around at the time.
+Jay Carlson 

Given Obama's already lack of action on Benghazi both during the attack, and his lack of action in seeking vengeance  I doubt he'd send troops to help any state defend themselves in the event of invasion.

Probably because he'd be the one ordering the invasion.
Supreme Court case US V Miller upholds the public right to own Military type weapons.
+Jay Carlson while what your saying is ture, it didnt always work that way. when and Andrew Jackson defended new orleans for instance? I believe it was him..
+Ron Morgan 

Louisiana history (Revolution and Civil) is filled with both Baton Rouge and New Orleans being both Defended by America, and Attacked by America.
the battle i was refering to is when the british tried to invade once again. because there was little help from the nearby states, jackson went throught he town and pressed citizens into the fight. if memory serves.
+Ron Morgan 

"We will fight them in the streets; with broken bottles and clubs, cause that's bloody well all we've got."

I think Winston Churchill on Germany's impending invasion 
+Ron Morgan You are referring to the Battle of New Orleans. Louisiana wasn't at war alone against the British, this was a battle in the War of 1812 and there were battles that took place at sea and in other states.
+Jay Carlson man, give me a break, im at work doing this from a smart phone.
+Jay Carlson I think the point I was feeblely attempting to make is that the defensive New Orleans would not have been possible without citizen participation
+Jay Carlson I think the point I was feeblely attempting to make is that the defensive New Orleans would not have been possible without citizen participation

God bless Texas and the group who thought of that law .Let's hope they don't flip flop like some of the law makers in DC .