TEXAS: New bill declares all federal gun control invalid and non enforceable

"AUSTIN, November 14, 2014– A Texas legislator has introduced a new bill to derail the enforcement of virtually all federal gun control measures within the state’s borders.

Introduced by newly re-elected State Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington), House Bill 176 (HB176) declares all federal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms to be “invalid” and “not enforceable” within the state of Texas. It bill reads, in part:

A federal law, including a statute, an executive, administrative, or court order, or a rule, that infringes on a law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 23, Article I, Texas Constitution, is invalid and not enforceable in this state.

If passed into law, all government agencies and employees within Texas would be banned from enforcing any federal law in violation of the act. The prohibition on enforcement includes any federal legislation that:

(1) imposes a tax, fee, or stamp on a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition that is not common to all other goods and services and may be reasonably expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by a law-abiding citizen;

(2) requires the registration or tracking of a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition or the owners of those items that may be reasonably expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by a law-abiding citizen;

(3) prohibits the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition by a law-abiding citizen;

(4) orders the confiscation of a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition from a law-abiding citizen."

With all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of many generations of parents not making sure that their children are being taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, please consider the following constitutional problems with federal gun control laws.

I wish that the Founding States could have included the language of the 2nd Amendment (2A) in the 1st Amendment’s list of powers prohibited to the federal government. But the reason that the Founders couldn’t outright prohibit Congress from making laws to regulate firearms is this. The delegates to the Con-Con had already reasonably delegated such power to Congress with respect to Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited power to raise and support armies and related arms issues.

Otherwise, noting that 2A is clearly not a delegation of power to the feds to regulate firearms, there is no constitutionally express delegation of power to the feds to regulate intrastate firearms used for personal defense. (Bear the four voting rights amendments (15, 19, 24, 26) in mind when considering specific powers.) The significance of the absence of such an express grant of specific power by the states to the feds is the following.

Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause aside, also noting the corrupt federal government’s wrong ignoring of the 10th Amendment (10A) on many issues, and bearing in mind one exception to the federal government’s lack of constitutional authority to regulate intrastate firemarms used for personal protection, please consider this. The Supreme Court has historically clarified in general that powers not expressly granted to the feds, the power to regulate personal defense intrastate firearms in this example, are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So why are there laws in the federal books which regulate intrastate firearms? It is disturbing that such laws seem to have started appearing in the books during the administration of Constitution-ignoring FDR, FDR and his puppet Democrat-controlled Congress notorious for establishing federal spending programs which wrongly stole 10A-protected powers and state revenues associated with those powers.

Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control

Regarding the one exception to the federal government’s power to regulate intrastate firearms, actually the basic lack of power to do so, please consider the following irony concerning 14A. The federal government actually has 14A power to prohibit the states from unreasonably limiting the use of personal defense intrastate firearms. But I’m still trying to find such laws (ahem).

Finally, the best example that I have found concerning the Founding States' intent for 2A is the following. Post Civil War lawmakers had expressed concern about giving the former slaves US citizenship when drafting 14A because the freedmen would then have constitutional protections, including 2A-protected right to bear arms for personal defense use. But 2A expert Steven P. Holbrook explains in his book “Securing Civil Rights” that the states ultimately decided to give the freedmen such protections.

Securing Civil Rights: Freedmen, Fourteenth Amendment and Right to Bear Arms

So I hope that all state lawmakers wise up to the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers and follow in Texas’s footsteps concerning 2A protections and all other applicable issues.

The federal employees in black robes will no doupt strike down such an act claiming the supremacy of their law abridging "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." that their congress... excuse me president, has nonetheless written and enforced upon the once free people of this state.
We are going to need legislators and state law enforcement personal with the balls to point out to those arrogant Federal SOBs that don't make any kind of sense.
In the end I trust we may have to have to surrender the arrested Federal agent to Federal authoritative "for trial", but that doesn't mean we can't keep aresting them nor makign a show of their hypocrisy & Constitution free rule.
The time of our people to become like Martin Luther 1000 years ago has come. We must post the Federal Constitution on the door and tell our countrymen to read it for themselves. Its time we start reminding our people about the truth just as Martin Luther did 1020 years ago.

Its Time we start loudly re-proclaim our rights as was plainly written, and tell the Corrupt Federal injustice system to take a hike. Then with interposition we will begin to harrass the lawless Federal authories, we may not be able to stop them but we can sure put them thou hell and constantly remind them of their traitorous status to our once free Constitution of limited civil government.

While i have no doubt that the people in power wish to remain in power. It is highly unlikely that they in conspiracy with each-other towards any global order. Instead if there is a common direction among them it is likely the result of common cultural predispositions towards their idea of order as is shared with them by their peers in their social networks which themselves are very likely consisting only of the “elite” people with common interest.

What doesnt make sense is how a honest person could read the Federal Constitution and deduce the vast and practically limitless power and mandates that the Federal employees in black robes have done. Mandates that in many cases directly contradict the literal wording and historic practice and understanding of the same constitutions.

State and federal employees who have taken an oath have a duty to uphold the Constitution not simply carry out the lawless will of their superiors. If that duty is to have any sensible propose at all it must by implication demand that they at least make constitutional sense of their superiors edits. Less they be forced to judge that their Superior are giving lawless orders as is always a possibility in a Constitutional system. (Unlike a unconstitutional system where higher up orders are by definition lawful)

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.