1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Texas lawmaker wants to outlaw gun ban if it

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by nathan, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. nathan

    nathan Well-Known Member

  2. kayakersteve

    kayakersteve Well-Known Member

    Wyoming is taking a stand as well
  3. breakingcontact

    breakingcontact Well-Known Member

    What is the legality of TX and WY doing this?
  4. nathan

    nathan Well-Known Member

  5. Wyndage

    Wyndage Well-Known Member

    See Printz v. United States (Wikipedia). County sheriffs can ignore Federal gun laws they consider to be unconstitutional.
  6. Nathaniel Firethorn

    Nathaniel Firethorn Well-Known Member

    There are over 8 million firearm owners in Texas.

    That's four times the size of the entire military.

    Texas is just one state.

    There are roughly 10 million illegals in the US. They aren't being deported.

    Figure it out.

    - NF
  7. 303tom

    303tom member

    I do applaud TX, WY & such, but unless we all do it, state law does not trump federal law............
  8. KTXdm9

    KTXdm9 Well-Known Member

    Excellent read, thanks for the education.

    I'm glad a few states are standing up to take the lead in preventing the feds from trampling our rights. Hopefully others follow suit.
  9. dodo bird

    dodo bird Well-Known Member

    The feds are ignoring colorado weed laws.
  10. HankB

    HankB Well-Known Member

    Just thinking . . .

    What if a state defined all lawful gun owners residing within a state to be members of a state militia? Wouldn't even the most creatively restrictive reading of the 2nd Amendment preclude Federal interference?
  11. JohnnyK

    JohnnyK Well-Known Member

    state laws dont trump fed laws? what about the marijuana laws in states like Ca and Colorado? God bless Tx!
  12. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    The Federal definition of militia hasn't kept them from trying to take the guns.

    Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

    "(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are —

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
  13. xfyrfiter

    xfyrfiter Well-Known Member

    I am a gun owner, I have pledged alleigance to the USA many times both as a child and an adult, I am not nor have i ever served as a member of the military, because of my sworn alleigance and my gun ownership does this make a member of the unorganized militia?
  14. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    If you are an able-bodied male citizen between the age of 17 and 45, you ARE militia.

    You don't have to be a gun owner, and you don't have to swear allegiance. By the Federal definition, you ARE militia.
  15. KMatch

    KMatch Well-Known Member

    What happens AFTER 45?? No ex-marines = no ex-militia or kicked to the curb?
  16. Silverado6x6

    Silverado6x6 Well-Known Member

    Technically in the past when you are over the regular max age you can then be part of what is called "Home Guard".

    I remember seeing countless instances in Britain where the more senior members were not regular guard, militia or military except in officers country, instead they were tasked with enforcing such things as rationing, blackout enforcement and instructions to civilians on shelter construction.

    Push come to shove I doubt age will play a serious factor, how many senior citizens are still driving at 90? If they want to be part of a militia then by all means allow them to contribute as much as they can comfortably perform.
  17. SouthernBoy

    SouthernBoy Well-Known Member

    Better yet, have the county sheriffs deputize mass amounts of citizens. A sheriff can arrest just about anyone. So if the ATF or federal marshals come in to take guns, just arrest them and throw them in jail.
  18. JellyJar

    JellyJar Well-Known Member

    Well I'll be! I have never heard of Steve Toth but I lived for 20 years in the Woodlands TX.

    Good for him!

    Couldn't a state pass a law that everyone who has a CCW is something like a Special Reserve Police Officer and therefore exempt from most Federal gun laws? Perhaps?
  19. goon

    goon Well-Known Member

    You're right. I'm not sure how this would work out in court, but it's still worthwhile for a couple reasons.

    1. It tells the Federal government that any enforcement they do will be on their own, paid for with their own money, and without any assistance from the state. That makes it much harder to enforce.

    2. It is a way for the people of a state who are tired of being dominated by the will of Chicago, Los Angeles, and NYC to protest laws that don't fit their needs.

    3. If enough states do this, perhaps the Federal government can be reined back in and will consider more widely acceptable policies on guns.

    I would like to see as many states as possible pass legislation saying something to the effect of:

    "No Federal firearms laws beyond those in effect on of October 1, 2004 will be enforced by the state of . In addition, any Federal officer attempting to enforce Federal firearms laws passed after said date may be placed into protective custody by officers of the state and escorted out of the state to decrease the chance of violent conflict with residents of the state."
  20. BobTheTomato

    BobTheTomato Well-Known Member

    The process of nullification has worked so far for marijuana. The keys is that most law enforcement is local and the feds rely on them to enforce laws. In this case if they say we will do nothing the feds might give up on enforcing them.

    For more interesting reading on the subject look up the tariff of 1832. South Carolina pretty much said it would send anyone to jail and seize their property to reimburse anyone harmed by this. Andrew Jackson wanted to invade them. They ended up backing down on the tariff issue and SC essentially won. Now what one needs to realize is this is back when we had a federal government not a national one. A state would need to be willing to say to the Feds we don't want your money. That is the one mechanism the federal government can use to force states to do these things by taking away cash. That is why all states have a 21 drinking age, if its not 21 you don't get highway funds. So it would take a state willing to go toe to toe with the Feds. It would be epic if they were willing to do it.

Share This Page