Thanks Montana, we Texans like your idea. We will give it a shot also.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Acera

Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
3,169
Location
Free State of Texas
God Bless Texas, and all who call her home.

http://www.star-telegram.com/legislature/story/1355073.html

Lawmaker aims at making Texas firearms exempt from federal regulation


By ANNA M. TINSLEY
[email protected]
A Texas lawmaker wants to further push state sovereignty from the federal government.

Rep. Leo Berman, a former Arlington mayor pro tem, has filed a bill to make guns, ammunition and gun parts that are made, sold and kept in Texas free from federal regulation.

That would exempt them from federal gun registration, dealer licensing rules and buyer background checks. State laws would still apply.

"This does two things," said Berman, a Tyler Republican. "It tests our sovereignty in relationship to the federal government, and it would attract new small gun manufacturers to the state to manufacture certain types of weapons and ammunition that are only used in intrastate commerce."

Guns and sovereignty are fiery issues in the Lone Star State, where residents resist federal regulations that could trample on either right.

Sparks flew last month when Gov. Rick Perry talked about how some Texans might want the state to secede from the U.S. and when a bill advanced in the Legislature to tell the federal government to "cease and desist" imposing regulations on the state.

Berman’s bill, similar to measures in Montana and Alaska, would push the sovereignty button even further.

The bill is pending in the House Public Safety Committee.

Texas-made

Berman said his bill is geared to help smaller "mom and pop" gun, ammunition and gun-part makers in Texas.

Those who make and sell their products in the state would put a "Made in Texas" stamp on items meant to stay in Texas.

Lawmakers say the federal government regulates firearms and ammunition through its power to regulate interstate commerce. If Texas prevents those products from leaving the state, federal officials’ arguments for regulating them are rendered moot, state lawmakers say.

"The bill requires every component to be made and stay in Texas," Berman said. "If it leaves Texas, it will be subject to federal legislation."

Critics say the bill is a long shot. They worry that if residents try to follow such a law, they would risk prosecution from the U.S. government, which may not recognize the legislation. Karl Dean Pifer, who owns KC Precision Ballistics in Granbury, said he has mixed feelings about the bill.

He and his wife and daughter make federally licensed ammunition at their home for up to .50-caliber firearms. Last year, they sold about 10,000 rounds — an amount they have already reached in the first quarter of this year, Pifer said.

While he would like some of the regulatory relief the bill could bring, Pifer said, he’s worried that manufacturers might not be under strict-enough guidelines.

"With no regulation, it could open it up to a lot of bad guys doing a lot of bad stuff," he said. But "it would be great to sell within the state without any additional taxes or regulations."

Test case?

A similar bill is pending in Alaska, where House members have approved the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act.

Some there say they see the bill as a way to reclaim some of their rights from the federal government.

But Texas lawmakers are keeping an eye on the Montana measure, which takes effect Oct. 1. That is the gun-sovereignty law they believe most likely to be tested in court.

Some have said they hope to set off a court battle by finding a Montana resident to notify the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that he or she will build and sell "made in Montana" rifles without federal licensing.

If not allowed to proceed, the resident would file a lawsuit in the hope of making it to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling.

"This will be the test case, to challenge the federal law," Berman said. "I’m very interested in our Second Amendment rights under the Constitution."

This is about HB 1863
 
Last edited:
Who do we need to contact to get this bill to a vote or is it already headed for a vote? I would look it up, but I have a bunch of school work due at midnight tonight and it would help me out if someone could post a few phone numbers. I plan on calling them tomorow in favor of this bill.
 
Does this mean not more silly prohibitions on full auto in TX? Oh I hope so.
 
I'm going to write my state rep, Jason Murphy, and see if he'll introduce such legislation in Oklahoma. I'll even suggest he propose a 1/4 cent to 1 cent bump in the state sales tax to support/help finance a gun manufacturer to build and operate a manufacturing facility here in Oklahoma. If the City of Oklahoma City can raise taxes to improve a city owned building to attract an NBA team(which was successful, by the way), I see no reason the state can't do something similar.

Try it in your state as well!

Woody
 
This sounds excellent!
I would love to move to Texas if this passes.

I don't mean to seem smarter than anyone else, nor detract from the sheer awesome that this seems to entail, but how will this work exactly?
Texas will negate some federal law(s). The federal government could claim supremacy.
Texas then retorts that the law(s) in question are justified under the Congressional powers to regulate interstate commerce, and that since all of the activity is taking place inside Texas, the federal government has no power to regulate it.
But so far as I understand legal precedent, and might I add, I am not even close to being a lawyer, substantial judicial precedent exists to negate this last argument. The precedent of Wickard v. Filburn extended the commerce powers of the federal government tremendously, and were affirmed recently in Gonzales v. Raich. So far as these cases can be applied to the issue at hand, it would seem that this bill is unconstitutional.
Whether or not any of us agree with the legal precedents doesn't really matter.
I am an ardent states righter, and I would like to say good on you, Texas. But I don't think this bill, if passed, would hold up when or if it gets challenged in federal court.
 
The weather is a little warm(mid 90's so far) but great. Ye are welcome just as long as you don't bring the winners about everything with you...
 
Bravo, Montana

These moves by Individual States with regards to Firearms may be just the thing we need to wake up America. Bravo, Montana and any other States contemplating this sort of Firearms legislation.
 
I like this. I like this alot. The only issue I see is that it won't be long before some AOWs and machineguns get made and sold. At that point, the fedgov will have either a landbreaking and wonderfull case, or a crushing case.

Either way, it will be a chance for a whole lot of new guns to get made and distributed.
 
this is what i like the call the domino effect

when one state does something right the rest will follow suit

imma right mine now and sugjest she do it too

if we can get a high enough number of states then we will have a majority and can maybe get a federal law passed to make federal involvement with firearms unconstitutional!!
 
The only thing that scares me about this is that something AWESOME is going to be made in Montana and/or Texas, and I won't be able to get one because I don't live there.

I hope ID will follow along.
 
I just emailed my representative. Thanks for the heads up.

I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could.
 
What would happen if, say, a half dozen states pass this sort of legislation? Would they pass reciprocity, and then start trading? I guess it'd be hard for Montana and Texas to trade unless the states between were part of the mix, but Alaska? Would they be able to trade directly with Montana by going through BC? Hmmm...
 
I have heard a few statements about this over the past few weeks. I just have some questions that I would like some honest answers on. Honestly, I am not looking to debate. These are just some thoughts on my mind that I would like to know. With each question I do provide some context for what I am thinking. Thanks for any information you can provide.

Well, here goes:

So we should dissolve the Union? Why? Because the man, duly elected by the people of the United States (and supported by a substantial portion of Texans) has policies that don't appeal to a portion of the electorate in Texas?

So, what happens when a portion of Texans want to secede from the country of Texas? So let's all just secede down to families and never have a nation since there will always be some issue that we can't agree upon.

More than half of the country was repulsed by Bush, yet how many governors of liberal states were talking about secession? In fact, criticisms of the Bush administration were decried as being unpatriotic. How is it patriotic to talk about secession?

Furthermore, the vast majority of the nation heard Obama's plan to raise taxes on the top 5% (who, by the way, voted for him more than they did McCain) and they voted for him. We knew what we were getting and we elected him. So if we get a Republican president, should the liberal states secede?

Finally, just an honest question. I will not be mad by the answer.

Be honest, is it that we have a Black president? Is it that some of us just can't deal with the fact that the president is Black? I just want to know, I will not respond to that answer.

I ask because it seems that cries of secession always come about when there is some great strive towards human/civil rights - when the government ended slavery, during the 1960s and now. Help me understand how race is not involved in the current cries for secession.

Thanks for your thoughts - I am just curious.
 
What would happen if Texas or other States pass this sort of law is that after the Feds fought it in court and lost - they would just attach legislation to new bills that would withdraw tons of Fed funding, trying to force those States back in line. Which pretty much is exactly what happened right before the last war for States Rights in the 1860's.
So any State following this trend better be prepared to deal with the pressure and/or loss of funds. Fortunately Texas is well able to function as a Republic of its own, just like it did originally...........but I seriously doubt many other States can. :(


BTW Blitz - no one here played the "race card" - it's not about race.........it's not about taxes................it's about stupidity.................it's about politicians FLAGRANTLY trying to void the Constitution this country was founded on......................once the Constitution is violated by the Gov't - there IS NO MORE UNION. So secession becomes a non-issue because the country would already have been destroyed in its essense.
 
Well, Blitzpackage....

The idea of Texas succeeding from itself isn't really a goal, or an intended (or unitended consequence) because Texas succeeding isn't the goal. The goal really is just for the fedgov to acknowledge and respect the 10th Amendment again.

The reason why left leaning states didn't want to succede, or even declare sovreignty in certain matters is because those on the left don't want to. They want, instead to impose their goals on the whole country through the fedgov. (Read A More Perfect Union by Jesse Jackson. It gives a great idea as to the mindset, though it's a chore)

As far as the wealthy getting a tax hike.... it's a tax hike of 3%. Whoop-t-doo. Given Bush's running of the country, I wouldn't doubt your statement, though I have to say these movements, the Tea Parties. They aren't about taxes.

They are about spending. People were willing to pay more. That doesn't mean they want government control of whole industries, cap and trade, bailouts, public works projects taking money out of the private sector, etc.

Most of the country still likes Obama. I doubt that many of those wealthy folks do. The middle class won't like him soon either. For one reason (I suppose this does indirectly hit taxes). More and more people don't believe this can all be paid for with a tax hike on the top and a tax cut for the rest of us. It either will hit us all with the indirect tax inflation, or higher marginal rates for a wide variety of people.

As for race..... the more racism gets thrown out on people who are not racist, the more "racism" stops meaning believing one race is superior to another, and the more that term comes to mean "heretic."

Conservatives aren't mad Obama is black. They are mad at virtually all of his policies. They are convinced that those policies will lead the nation to ruin. I'm not saying there aren't racists amongst this movement.What I am saying is that they are in a very small minority.

Finally, this whole movement is about civil rights. Making sure that the governent can't confiscate your property, and your right to keep and bear arms. Or any of the other things this Administration has said it wants to confiscate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top