Texas State Rep to introduce Firearms Protection Act

www.yourhoustonnews.com... .html

[url]www.yourhoustonnews.com/cypresscreek/news/state-rep-steve-toth-to-file-firearm-protection-act/article_8b2709a5-80c2-547b-814a-11ad56340677.html[/ url]

AUSTIN – State Rep. Steve Toth (R-The Woodlands) has begun the process to file legislation assisting the protection of the Second Amendment of the United State Constitution

The “Firearms Protection Act” bill would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

“We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas,” said Toth.

Texas looks like it will be fighting back against any Federal gun ban. In addition to this on recent Texas firearms stuff, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst also spoke about firearms training for teachers.

First it was Wyoming that introduced this same Firearms Protection Act bill a few days ago, and now I wonder how many more states will pick up this bill? Arizona? Mississippi? Oklahoma? I say they more than likely will.

Im guessing this bill will pass pretty easily. (hopefully)

(For some reason, the link function dosent want to work in the first link, so here's another)

Extra link to this story www.khou.com...

I thought we already had a firearms protection act? Isn't it called the 2nd amendment? Soon we will need freedom of speech protections acts.

It is up to local government and the citizenry to protect the constitution as it is set forth to limit the federal government.

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
I thought we already had a firearms protection act? Isn't it called the 2nd amendment? Soon we will need freedom of speech protections acts.

Sure, but the problem here is some in DC consider the Constitution to be a living document, up for varied interpretations and more written between the lines than actually appears in the text itself.

Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

Doesn't Federal law always supercede state law??? Texas should just secede and get it over with and let us send all of our loonies there.

Originally posted by CB328

Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

Doesn't Federal law always supercede state law??? Texas should just secede and get it over with and let us send all of our loonies there.

Why can't we send them to Canada?

Originally posted by CB328

Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

Doesn't Federal law always supercede state law??? Texas should just secede and get it over with and let us send all of our loonies there.

I, for one, would love to live in a land of such loonies. But noooo--instead I live in the state of California, where they think guns should be illegal. I've lived in Texas, and it's among my favorite places. I won't require much more California treatment to persuade me to move to Texas, or some other state that believes in States Rights over Federal overreach....

ETA: And to answer your question: An unqualified no. And here's why:

"The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification is the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional or exceeds Congress’ constitutionally authorized powers."

Originally posted by CB328

Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

Doesn't Federal law always supercede state law??? Texas should just secede and get it over with and let us send all of our loonies there.

Yes and No. Technically Federal Law states marijuana is illegal and criminal. Some states have laws making it not criminal.

So the feds could come in and take guns, but no STATE agnecy could do it.

They really have their job cut out for them if their actual intention is to eventually remove firearms from the American people's possession.

It would take an unimaginably massive amount of manpower & resources to advance a gun confiscation agenda.

They will constantly be plagued by defections, local insurrections, sabotage & rebellions.
They will have to deal with supply lines being cut, infrastructure being destroyed, and ambushes.
A logistical nightmare...

And then there's Texas

If it's really what they want then...well...good luck then...they're going to need it

reply to post by coldkidc


Well, like the "boiling frog" analogy (which, I must say, is silly on its face), I think they plan to do it gradually--on the theory that we won't notice or complain much.

For instance, Feinstein probably doesn't believe she'll get her entire wishlist passed. Instead it will be winnowed down to a smaller, but symbolically significant, list. The next media frenzy, she'll offer the remaining wishlist, and so on. Until, in theory, at least, they've left us disarmed.

Problem is, though, that although reality takes theory into account, theory doesn't take reality into account. At some point they'll go just one click too far. And I can't wait to see that happen....

reply to post by coldkidc


starr...for explaining it for us Texans.....just north of Dallas....where the country boys you've heard of in the songs hang....and grow.....grow big.....and stand for something ( so we won't fall for just anything)

It's all a question of the 10th amendment and to the 10th I think it'll all be headed. The Texas Rangers will get to finally arrest some ATF agents (You should read the raw reports on Waco. The Rangers and Feds don't like each other much at all) and it'll be fight on. Who knows how Obama will deal with his agents sitting in a Texas jail. That state would be the one to do it though. At least, the first.

Obama is supposed to be the President of the United States. That's both sides and not just the 52% or whatever it was who got the math on votes for him. Pushing this stupid crap that any freshman congressman could tell him is politically radioactive is just creating hate for the sake of it and nothing more productive, IMO.

reply to post by coldkidc

They really have their job cut out for them if their actual intention is to eventually remove firearms from the American people's possession.

In addition to states doing what is described in the OP, it seems Capitol Hill is pulling back on their expectations of gun control passing in the Congress.

news.yahoo.com...

Nearly a month after the massacre of 27 people in Newtown, Conn., lawmakers on Capitol Hill are dialing back expectations on what Congress can – or should – do on its own to curb gun violence.

On Sunday, top gun lobbyists predicted that there’s not enough support in Congress for a new ban on assault weapons and that even curbs on high-capacity magazine clips were in doubt.

“An assault weapons standalone ban on just guns alone will not go anywhere in the political reality we are in,” Senator Manchin said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” It has to be a “comprehensive approach,” he added, including mental health and video violence. The issues is not guns, he said, it’s a “culture of mass violence.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) of Maryland told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that "it's going to be very difficult" to revive the assault weapons ban. But there's a better chance of winning agreement on universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines, he added.

It starting to look like not much is going to happen in congress. As for Obama and his executive orders? I have no idea.

Originally posted by coldkidc
It would take an unimaginably massive amount of manpower & resources to advance a gun confiscation agenda.

Yes, you are correct. It WOULD take an unimaginably massive amount of manpower & resources to advance a gun confiscation agenda. And THEY have the manpower and resources. and they WILL use them.

They will constantly be plagued by defections, local insurrections, sabotage & rebellions.
They will have to deal with supply lines being cut, infrastructure being destroyed, and ambushes.
A logistical nightmare...

Again, I agree. They have thought of these set backs and have allowed for them. They have prepared for them.
THey understand that it is part of the game. They are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their end goal.
They don't care how much it is going to cost in terms of dollars or human lives because they have unlimited of both.
You and everyone else need to know this because this is what we're up against. It is called war. and it is getting ready to break out in a few weeks to a few months.

Strap your ass in cuz it's gonna be a bumpy ride.

reply to post by buni11687


I have never been more proud of Texas. I have to visit my sister some time soon. I have never been, and now....its looking REALLY appealing.

I am going to move back to the states anyways. I might as well get a fresh start and make a move to the lone star state.

I dont know. Texas has given me something to think about. 2nd amendment aside. They are protectors of the constitution and I still believe in that. It is important to me, especially now a days.

Hats off Texas. You rock.

Originally posted by CB328

Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

Doesn't Federal law always supercede state law??? Texas should just secede and get it over with and let us send all of our loonies there.

Yes, Federal law trumps state law. And aside from the legalities of the matter, let's compare enforcement assets. The state of Texas "air force" is comprised of 15 Eurocopter AS350 single engine helicopters, one twin-engine Eurocopter EC145, seven single engine unarmed Cessnas and an unarmed twin engine Aero commander. Match that against the fed's 345 A-10 Gatling cannon equipped Warthogs, 25 AC-130 gunships equipped with everything from 30 mm chain guns to 105 mm howitzers, 66 B-1B supersonic bombers, 20 B-2 stealth bombers, 76 H model B-52s, 476 F-15s, 1004 F-16s, 195 F-22s, and 25 F-35s.
And to counter the Texas helicopter threat, there are 727 AH-64 attack helicopters.
And that list ignores all Navy, Marine Corps and USCG assets, and all non-tactical and support assets like cargo, tanker, recon, electronic warfare, airlift, observation, training, etc.

The 2nd is already good for that. They should introduce legislation instead that defines proper storage of firearms, so that they cant be stolen by relatives (most common) or strangers and make it a felony to not store your arms in a way that they do not threaten the public.

I live in New York City, and while I do not desire to own a gun, I am truly perplexed as to how they got around the second amendment? Honestly if I had a gun and was arrested, wouldn't I ultimately prevail in a court of law? There are shootings here all the time, the only people that have guns are criminals and cops!

I am not saying that the city isn't a better place for it, but I do feel robbed of my constitutional rights.

Should the bill become state law and the Feinstein bill become Federal law, it will be an extremely interesting scenario. The state law enforcement machinery can arrest the federal law enforcement machinery and will lead to a confrontation between the two involving arms.

Regardless of who wins the military confrontation, the US standing in the international arena will take a nosedive and could even lead to outsiders taking sides in the conflict and even arming the state. Nothing like elected officials throwing their weight behind a cause to lend it credibility. It will be one thing to declare as terrorists, criminals or lunatics a band of self-appointed freedome fighters and another to do the same to duly elected representatives of a region.

I seriously doubt the confrontation will be limited to the state of Texas.

US military cannot be used to make the states comply with the federal law. It is extremely risky. Using it to bring to knees some self-appointed freedom fighters is an easy decision to make, because the military is guarranteed to obey the orders to do so. Same is not true when they are pitted against legitimate governments of the states. The miltary might refuse the orders or worse may lead to mutiny in the ranks.

Obama keeps bringing Lincoln up. Unless he actually wants to preside over a civil war, he will backtrack should enough states pass laws similar to the bill proposed authorsing state LEOs to arrest federal LEOs trying to enforce laws regarding guns.

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by CB328

Anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face felony charges under the proposal.

Doesn't Federal law always supercede state law??? Texas should just secede and get it over with and let us send all of our loonies there.

Yes, Federal law trumps state law. .

That is NOT correct.

Federal law only applies when the states have not reserved a specific power. This means that if there is no state law allowing or banning something then the Feds can pass a law allowing or banning that something and enforce said law.

If TX passes laws that allow assault rifles and high capacity magazines then according to our system the Feds cannot enforce any contrary positions within that State.

This hasn't stopped them from trying, however as in the cases of medical mj facilities, growers and users acting legally under state law being prosecuted by the Feds.

Those cases, if / when they get to the Supreme Court "should" be overturned but the Federal circuit court system is corrupt and has been able to block those cases from progressing so far. (They will get there eventually but in most cases the sentences will be over by then and the damage done). So, unless there are more BS Federal laws protecting them from lawsuits the end result will be reversed convictions and millions in settlements.

The Feds don't care though. They will continue doing something they know is contrary to our constitution in order to keep their drug war agenda moving, collect money and property (and drugs in some cases) and continue creating a "deterrent" in their words.

This is a prime example of the Federal government abusing power and acting as a tyrant. It was exactly these kinds of abuses which led to the American Revolution when the King of England was in the role. Even then, less than 5% of the population supported the revolution and took part in it while a majority remained loyal to England and were willing to suffer tyranny just to maintain the status quo.