Posted on 01/31/2013 12:52:17 PM PST by TexasRedeye
Introduced Caption Text: Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.
Any Class III item makes insurance companies nervous. They just can't find a way to logically restrcit supressors.
Put that together with H.B. No. 553 which makes it a crime to enforce any such federal laws. The nanny state feds can take a hike...
Section 1 (b)(6) That all federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds with the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore, infringes upon Texan's right to bear arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, any such law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus, is not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, is invalid in this State and shall be further considered null and void and of no effect in this State.
(e) An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the confinement and the fine.
SECTION 6. REPORT. The Texas Department of Public Safety shall immediately report to the governor, attorney general, and the legislature any attempt by the federal government to implement or enforce any law in violation of this Act through the Texas Department of Public Safety, or any another state or local law enforcement agency.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB553
.
There is lots of precedent for this - not that I agree with the precedent, but bear in mind that law is based on brute force, not on logic or respect for tradition or agreement.
The Ninth Circuit, of all circuits, reversed a federal conviction, reasoning that the firearms in question never left California. The Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to reinstate the conviction, using the Raich (marijuana) case for support of federal jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.
I ponder, from time to time, what it will take to constitute sufficient political pressure to get Congress and the federal Courts to back off.
I ponder, from time to time, what it will take to constitute sufficient political pressure to get Congress and the federal Courts to back off.
Similar united action from the majority of states backed up by their National Guards and local law enforcement.
Yes, I think a confrontation between a state and the feds would clarify which has more resolve and power. See Brown v. Board of Education and civil war.
I think the feds are acting outside of the constitution that created them, and my respect for the feds is like my respect for the Mafia. They are liars, cheats, and morally bankrupt. The only honor they have it to themselves - a federal omerta. They are beyond redemption. But, and this is a big "but," they are determined, and they are eager to use the force of violence to obtain compliance.
Anyway, when Wyoming passed its parallel act, it considered and rejected using Wyoming money to defend a Wyoming citizen in a relevant federal court action (crime of possession of a intrastate item, ostensibly under federal regulation). If the state won't defend its prerogative with lawyers, what makes you think they'd defend it with guns?
Thanks! Cannot wait...but so much to do.
Suppressors are a safety device. I would expect OSHA to approve them as an “engineering solution” to the dangerous decibel level.
Suppressors protect you from hearing loss in the same way mufflers are mandated for certain types of equipment where humans are intended to be nearby.
We don’t argue these point correctly.
Yeah, you guys are right...for some reason I was thinking that 12.5mm was an inch. I guess I just have Ma Deuce on the brain.
Not so. 1" = 25.4mm, so 1.5" = about 38mm!
Oh, no, that was actually several years ago, and while Montana was the first to enact this, the legislation is now law in something like 8 states. You can see a map with status of this legislation in the various states, as well as other information at FirearmsFreedomAct.com
WHY?? It makes no sense. If they had any opinion at all I'd think they'd prefer them so they don't get sued for hearing loss (though I'm sure you have to sign a waiver).
These laws do no more than point out federal overreach and state that the state will not comply. Some of them actually go so far as to criminalize federal LEO's for enforcing federal laws on guns to which they do not properly apply. Next step would be for the state saying its state LEO's will protect with force of arms any citizen of the state the feds want to prosecute for a "violation" of a federal law lacking jurisdiction. And mean it. There are I think 8 states that have passed some version of this, and so far only Wyoming's contains the prohibition of federal agents (Vermont's or New Hampshire's did too, but failed to be passed), but there have been no confrontations as yet, so it remains to be seen how serious the states were or if it was just symbolism.
See Texas HB553 which is introduced in this legislature. This is just such a bill for Texas.
Why continue to use the twisted logic of the Left RE: Regulate interstate commerce? The regulate: to make standard in conformity; NOT: to hold power power over.
Let alone follow with the 2nd faux pas, that the current ‘laws’ are Constitutional to begin with!
If our own here on FR can’t get it down correctly, what the hell does anyone expect from those in D.C. in front of the cameras?
Why continue to use the twisted logic of the Left RE: Regulate interstate commerce? The regulate: to make standard in conformity; NOT: to hold power power over.
I agree. However, that is one of the main reasons the FedGov exists: to protect states from each other, etc. I’m not saying that once something crosses state lines they should get involved. Rather, I’m saying that until it does, if it does not violate the US constitution, it’s none of their business.
Good to know! Thanks!
I prefer it not have to come to this. But I’m not surprised, either.
How about also specifying that attempts to enforce illegal federal statutes may be prosecuted under existing state laws against robbery, kidnapping, etc., and further specifying that since such illegitimate enforcement can by definition form no part of a federal official's legitimate duties, any statute which would seek to remand such prosecution to federal court shall be deemed inapplicable?
Okay then, I’ll be the first to say it...
Dang, no M203 Grenade Launchers then...
Well, as the rights thieves always say, "This bill is a good first step!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.