Just Empty Gestures

Yes. Empty gestures are a staple of the political arsenals of left and right; the preferred weapon of choice by most politicians.

Yet, these empty gestures are not without peril. The suppressor law in TX is most dangerous because some numpties will believe it to be true. And then they will be astounded when arrested and tried in a federal court.

Just as the empty gestures of the Left will have no impact on the illegal use of firearms but, as with the pistol braces ruling by ATF, will turn tens of thousands of law abiding citizens overnight into felons for the sole purpose of allowing Biden to pander to Bloomberg.

State laws bucking the feds are empty gestures, except when it involves the maryhoochie laws. The feds couldn't give less a hoot, but have a can or a 1/2" too short an OAL or barrel and it's the Supermax for you, buddy boy!

The Last Outlaw said:

I have been seeing everywhere about Missouri and their new 2A law and the new suppressor law in Texas. IMO, these "laws" are just empty gestures by politicians. The Constitution plainly states that federal law takes precedence over state law. Seems like a waste of time and effort.

Click to expand...

Fed law is only going to “take precedence” if the feds choose to pick up your case.

Are the feds really going to file a misdemeanor weapons charge based on one line (“suspect said he did not have a carry permit for the pistol”) in a police report? If it’s slam dunk AND the guidelines call for major time, then maybe they will. But if it’s a gun charge — a slam dunk with guidelines that start at Zero months — then why would they bother?

it’s nice to know there is nothing on the state books for the DA to jack you up on

It's a totally symbolic gesture, but I still like it because it sends a message ( ) to the fedgov.

But yea, as LAW it is pointless and DocRock and others who look askance at these laws are totally correct.

I prefer empty gestures to pitiful capitulation by supposedly pro-gun politicians any day.

pairof44sp said:

Fed law is only going to “take precedence” if the feds choose to pick up your case.

Click to expand...

Speaking of "picking and choosing" - Supreme Court, anyone? Mildly infuriating that they could put so much gun control out to pasture with the mildest of pro-2A rulings, yet will take on none of them.

At least some states are trying to send a message, effective or not...

Abbott has his eye on the Whitehouse and Paxton has his eye on the TX governors mansion.
I imagine the Feds are chomping at the bit to make an ‘example’ out of some poor stooge who thinks he can own a suppressor without a stamp. Or even worse, crosses a state line with it.

Federal laws were originally meant to regulate interstate commerce and not intrastate commerce.

And we also have the 10th Amendment which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It will be interesting how these new laws play out. Especially considering how the marijuana laws are. There really is no difference. It is all in how the feds pick and choice what they want to enforce.

The intrastate argument has come and gone for the most part. Could Abbot demonstrate that a suppressor is made from materials all mined, refined and machined in TX?

twarr1 said:

I imagine the Feds are chomping at the bit to make an ‘example’ out of some poor stooge who thinks he can own a suppressor without a stamp.

Click to expand...

Too late for that--this has already happened in Kansas.
Several of these cases have already been brought--they tend to be fireflies, burning bright for a moment (in "our" community) then burn out to darkness.

There's some use to these things.
Basically the State is saying, the Federal rules are enough, this State will not impose more. This eliminates the hinky bits of per-state legislation, like MI and WA have for suppressors, just to name two.

And, while presently, immediately, they are of little use to any one given firearm owner, these laws do inform District and Circuit Courts.

Legally, this is probably more in the province of how the States interact with the Federal Government, and less about individual Citizens. Which will be frustrating to the individual.

My earlier question still remains: If rights not specifically given to the federal government belong to the states, why are any gun laws federal? Where does the Constitution say the federal government has the right to regulate the private firearms of individuals?

old lady new shooter said:

Where does the Constitution say the federal government has the right to regulate the private firearms of individuals?

Click to expand...

We are told it's by way of the Commerce Clause, and in the specific interest of the safety of the Public at large.

Which leads off into all sorts of arguments, few of which are productive, excepting narrow one argued by constitutional scholars.
Which is left behind in a quest to find a way to strike a uniform set of regulations across the several and varied States.
None of which is much fodder for THR.

old lady new shooter said:

Where does the Constitution say the federal government has the right to regulate the private firearms of individuals?

Click to expand...

It doesn't.

GEM said:

The intrastate argument has come and gone for the most part. Could Abbot demonstrate that a suppressor is made from materials all mined, refined and machined in TX?

Click to expand...

To add to this. Make them from local materials. Have Abbot's administration and state representatives who signed up, then go to the range and use them. Civil Rights folks stood up like that - come on Greg.

GEM said:

To add to this. Make them from local materials. Have Abbot's administration and state representatives who signed up, then go to the range and use them. Civil Rights folks stood up like that - come on Greg.

Click to expand...

That would be awesome actually.

The Texas law is not entirely an empty gesture . . . with the Texas justice system not prosecuting for a suppressor violation, it's marginally less likely a case will come to the attention of the Feds for prosecution in a Federal court.

It still seems to me that violating Federal law while trusting (hoping?) that State officials will keep the Feds in the dark about it is not a good strategy for staying out of prison.

The Last Outlaw said:

IMO, these "laws" are just empty gestures by politicians. The Constitution plainly states that federal law takes precedence over state law. Seems like a waste of time and effort.

Click to expand...

Nope, not at all empty gestures, and not a waste of time. You are correct that US Constitution and US law do take precedence over state laws. However, that does not mean that state and local LEOs must at all times actively enforce those laws. They are free to sit back and let the Feds (FBI, DHS, SS, Park Rangers, ATF, PIC, etc.) take care of Federal law enforcement.

If you doubt this, look at how marijuana cases are being handled. Quite a few states now have state laws allowing either medical use or even recreational use of pot (this include the District of Columbia!). Yet all of that weed sale and use remains illegal under Federal law. Yet no one complains that the local and state LEOs spend no time enforcing the Federal laws on marijuana.

Craig

Craig_VA said:

Nope, not at all empty gestures, and not a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Show us where a single one of these state firearm freedom laws has changed federal law. Until they do........classic empty gesture.

You are correct that US Constitution and US law do take precedence over state laws. However, that does not mean that state and local LEOs must at all times actively enforce those laws. They are free to sit back and let the Feds (FBI, DHS, SS, Park Rangers, ATF, PIC, etc.) take care of Federal law enforcement.

Click to expand...

Again, show where state and local LEO's activly enforce ANY federal law. They don't and never have. Sure, they can call ATF, FBI, DEA.....but state and local cops have never enforced federal law. Not their jurisdiction.

If you doubt this, look at how marijuana cases are being handled. Quite a few states now have state laws allowing either medical use or even recreational use of pot (this include the District of Columbia!). Yet all of that weed sale and use remains illegal under Federal law. Yet no one complains that the local and state LEOs spend no time enforcing the Federal laws on marijuana.

Click to expand...

And so what? It's not their job.

dogtown tom said:

It's not their job.

Click to expand...

Right. So it's not really an, "empty gesture" then for the state to make a law codifying that it's not their job.

Wisconsin is doing the same. I'm NOT going to be a test case!

bearcreek said:

Right. So it's not really an, "empty gesture" then for the state to make a law codifying that it's not their job.

Click to expand...

It's an empty gesture because it was never their job. Ever. Not now, not ten years ago, not ever.
The federal courts keep reminding state and local PD it isn't their job to arrest or detain illegal immigrants. Again, because it is not their job, nor jurisdiction to do so.

The Federal Government was created my the STATES with the ratification of the Constitution. The first 10 amendments of the Constitution was ratified out of fear of federal government overreach for power. The 10th amendment says that the federal government only has the power granted to it by the states. Any power not given to the federal government by the States are retained by the states. So IF you follow the Constitution federal law does not automatically trump state law.

If it weren't for the empty gestures of numerous states counting women votes, who knows how many more decades it would have taken the feds to get on board.

If it wasn't for the empty gesture of 19 or so free states over the ~15 slave states, who knows how much longer the the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation would of taken.

While currently tangibly worthless in fed court, the empty gestures have a way of building momentum to pressure the feds.