Texas proposes a law to nullify any federal anti-gun laws

But the intensity is on the other side...

 

That's pretty much what happened when George Wallace stood in the school doorway to prevent integration of the University of Alabama in 1963.

from Wikipedia

I remember seeing it on TV News as a kid of 13.

 

Update: Apparently, Oklahoma is following suit.

From Breitbart.com:

Here is the link: Oklahoma Threatens Five Years Imprisonment for Federal Gun Grabbers

And from the proposed legislation itself:

This works for me...

 

LOL, all the Federal Government (in this case the President) has to do is federalize the National Guard to take anyone who tries to enforce such a law into custody. Article VI section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is important reading as is Article II section 2-1. If the National Guard refuses to comply, they become traitor's. Look at the attempt by George Wallace when he tried to block federal enforcement of federal desegregation laws.

 

Don't mess with Texas.

 

from Yeat's

 

All they really need do is pass a law that says no state personnel or resources will be used in enforcing the federal scheme...

 

Heck, it's already against policy here in Houston to inquire of or do anything to arrest and deport crimaliens... so leaving us law abiding gun owning citizens alone is the least they can do.

 

A janitor in a company claiming no business deal is valid without his/her signature, that's what Texas is.

 

Almost everyone on the left appears to believe that the concept of nullification must inevitably lead to military conflict. This is a belief that I find most unlikely.

It is far more probable, in my opinion, that the feds would cut off Social Security benefits and/or Medicare to the states in question, in order to pressure them to reconsider. (The most likely response to this, I think, would be for the affected states to make criminalize the withholding of Social Security tax and/or Medicare tax from any employee's paycheck, within state boundaries.)

It would be interesting, in my opinion, to see how this might play out.

But Tuscaloosa revisited (or Little Rock revisited, for that matter)? I really don't think so...

 

Every time in the past when states have tried to nullify a federal statute, and actually tried to prevent enforcement of a federal law, it has come down to a show of force by the federal government over the State Government, usually U.S. Marshall's but occasionally by nationalizing the States National Guard. As far as I know the route you suggest has never even been tried. Now the State might refuse to use state resources, police, Sheriffs, etc. to enforce federal law, but once the State attempt to actively interfere with Federal Agents from enforcing the law by arresting them, etc. , then the issue has already gone the level of insurrection against the Federal Government.

 

When these pathetic attempts at grandstanding fail in spectacular fashion I wonder if the electors of the various states will remember the time that their legislators made absolute fools of themselves.

Probably not.

 

The last time this happened was way back in 1963--fully half a century ago.

Things have changed substantially since then.

Moreover, I do not believe that the defenders of racial segregation--or, a century earlier, the defenders of slavery--held the moral high ground.

I believe that nowadays, however, those who favor nullification do hold the moral high ground.

Which is why so many states are now being attracted to it; and why that number may soon reach a point of critical mass...

To describe the matter as "insurrection" is to assume that the federal government is simply going about its business lawfully when a state acts against the feds' agents.

But there is nothing lawful about the feds' defying the US Constitution--and then sending their agents to enforce unconstitutional laws and regulations...

 

And you are quite certain that these laws will "fail"--why, exactly?

Could it be because you deeply, viscerally oppose such laws?

Just possibly?

 

How does requiring background checks on all gun purchases, even private sales violate the Constitution. How does the ban on high capacity clips violate the Constitution. You seem to be suggesting that the Ban on private ownership of Military Grade Rocket launchers and machine guns (except under very special circumstances) would be unconstitutional as well.

 

That is not up to me to decide.

Neither is it up to you.

From Breitbart.com, as posted earlier in this thread:

If the individual states are the final arbiters of this matter--as I believe they must be--then this law, if it passes, should ultimately settle the matter, in the state in question.

 

If my so called clips are declared illegal, how much is Obama going to pay me to sell them to him? I paid good money for a legal item and now his new arbitrary laws are making me decide to either throw away my hard earned money while reducing my ability to protect my family and property... or continue to obey the law.
If I had one, I would be glad to sell my bushmaster and clips to Obama right now for the prices being gouged on those items in the real world. Anything lower, and we just don't have a deal.
Even a tax credit which might get your current Obama increase in taxes for this year would be acceptable.
Maybe that's one way the republicans can try and offset Obama's lovely tax increase for those of us in the middle class.....?

 

Well, several states have already done so with light bulbs (thank goodness!). While the federal government has power to regulate interstate commerce, there is a question about whether they have the right to ban something within a state, especially when there is an ammendment in the constitution that specifically limits their power.

 

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter, the last time the states took it upon themselves to be the final arbiter we had a very long and bloody war, and the states that tried to be the final arbiter were crushed.

 

I believe in States' rights; it is unfortunate the Right only believes in States' right when they have a potential profit motive.

 

States cannot change federal laws.

 

Not all federal laws are "valid" in the several States.

 

The Supreme Court in a decision on BoBo care noted that federal fund cutoffs have to have a relationship to the program being punished...ie; while they might be able to cut of funds for law enforcement, they could not cut off funds for health care.

 

Background checks would require legislation, not executive order, and the magazines would seem to violate Heller on the 'in common use' test.