Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Government

Find Out How This Texas Lawmaker Is Trying to Shield His State From Gun Control Measures Enacted by ‘King Obama’

Jan. 15, 2013 9:23pm Jason Howerton

Any future federal laws passed by Congress or executive orders imposed by President Barack Obama aimed at restricting the ownership of semi-automatic guns or limiting the size of magazines will be considered illegal in Texas — that is, if a newly proposed bill makes it through the Texas legislature.

GOP Rep. Steve Toth said he plans to introduce the “Firearms Protection Act,” which calls for felony criminal charges to be filed against any federal official who tries to enforce new gun-restricting regulations in the Lone Star State.

Proposed Legislation Would Make Enforcing Future Gun Laws a Felony in Texas

(Steve Toth for Texas)

“If a federal official comes into the state of Texas to enforce the federal executive order, that person is subject to criminal prosecution,” Toth told 1200 WOAI’s Joe Pags Tuesday.

Federal officials would face a $50,000 fine and up to five years in prison for attempting to enforce a federal gun ban, according to Toth.

“It is our responsibility to push back when those laws are infringed by King Obama,” Toth said.

Comments (152)

republitarian
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:30pm
It’s already here in New York. 7 rnd mags, mandatory registration… This bill is a nightmare.

Please spread the word about the protest at the capital in Albany. Jan 19th. High noon.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DeOppressoLiber
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:01pm
  The republicans better do something or every conservative/libertarian should leave the party. Just call them up and tell them to stop sending you anything and asking for money. If the republicans do not do anything then lets cut them loose like a bad parachute. This is their wake up call.
  
  The states are going to have to protect our liberties. Lets put up some state ballots to legalize what Dear leader bans, and all our Bill of Rights, just like Washington and Colorado did with marijuana.
  
  States could use it to attract people,
  
  Come to (states name), Where Your Individual Liberties Are Protected. We Protect You From The 800lb Gorilla.
  
  It will be a selling point for workers and businesses to relocate.
  
  Report this comment
- krjones
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:02pm
  I thought Texans were going to just say no and let them take them to jail. Passive resistance… Did I hear wrong?
  
  Report this comment
- Independent4233
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:05pm
  “………a New Jersey Police Officer who has been a member of Oath Keepers since 2009, makes it clear that he will not obey orders that violate the Bill of Rights. In particular, he says he will not be used as a tool of oppression against the American people who resist and refuse to comply with infringement on their right to bear arms, such as legislation or executive orders that decree they must register, get finger printed and photographed, like a criminal.”
  
  He’s encouraging other police to refuse to enforce any gun laws recently enacted.
  
  http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/01/14/video-oath-keeper-officer-calls-on-brother-cops-to-refuse-to-enforce-gun-bans-or-registration
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:24pm
  @KRJONES .. that is what Glenn wants the rest of us to do …. just go quietly to the FEMA camps. So disappointed in him …
  
  Report this comment
- Dirtdigger67
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:36pm
  @catb Glenn means well but he just does not have a set on him but he does get some good points across but lay down we will not and I assure you there are more of us then you think. Ps thank god I’m not in New York any more
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:53pm
  @CATB
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:24pm
  @KRJONES .. that is what Glenn wants the rest of us to do …. just go quietly to the FEMA camps. So disappointed in him …
  —————————————————-
  Forget about Glenn Beck. He’ll be worried about himself. You should too.
  
  Report this comment
- republitarian
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:18am
  Link to facebook page:
  
  https://www.facebook.com/GunsAcrossAmericaNewYork
  
  We need some national support here.
  
  Report this comment
- rc30
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:31am
  I knew when Obama won in 08 it was time to move and get the hell out. I lived my hole life near Flint Michigan I’m 42. I moved to the great state of Texas because something in my hart just told me get out. I backed up and moved FEB of 09 to west Texas. I left my family my friends and my business everything.
  I knew this would be one of the states that would make a stand. The people here have gave me new hope for the future at least in west Texas. I’m a yankee from a driffernt state. The people here are good people not like back home. Not saying there not good people back home but so much eivil there. But I will give everything I still have to stand with the people of Texas if I’m called to do so. God I hope not for the sake of all of are children.
  
  Thank you people of Texas for giving me hope that my children my still have a chance to do better then there father. Thank you so much for what you have gave me. HOPE
  
  Report this comment
- motherboard
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:33am
  I have come to believe that all conservatives, be them Libertarian, Republican or Democrat, should cut their losses and evacuate both New York and California, just for starters. Both states are irreparably lost, and you are now paying for the dead beats and their slave masters to run your life. Leave, and watch those two states fall off into their respective oceans. Remember, your only purpose there now is to pay for the dead beats and their masters to tell you how to live. The battle has been lost there. The bigger picture still remains. Pick your battles wisely and abandon this one.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:36am
  Glenn is right about one thing if Civil War breaks out, Obama will bring I’m the UN, NATO, & EU armed forces to bear on the American people. He also be sending any US military people who support him to kill Americans as well. Though I’m sure at least half the military will defect and be on the side of the people if he tries that.
  
  Fictional interpretation, but shows essentially what would happen if civil war started…
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7eSc1pRDCc
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 4:54am
  Come to think of it Obama also has access to many PMC armies as well…
  
  Report this comment
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:15am
  @KRJones What did you hear and who did you hear it from? Anyone who doesn’t understand passive resistance is saying no has a misunderstanding evidently of what it is about, k? In Texas we are wired to fight but savvy first. Ranting and raving and threatening gets one where? Quack quack quack. Hating Obama and the rest of the root rot in DC is only hurting self because they do not give a fig newton what we think. They are so power greedy and arrogant they have to be duplicitous to win. We don’t. We have to be smart. And oh yes, I have called them every name under the sun and fat lot of good it did (well, of course it felt good temporary but it doesn’t help the blood pressure). The last person I wrote and called a BB brain was Mario Cuomo. I mean, really, is he tough? Not a savvy man. He is a sneaky man. No different than a sneak thief. Cheating his people.
  
  Report this comment
- john141714
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 6:39am
  @REPUBLITARIAN
  I know everyone can not do it but I moved out of NY and to SD because NY is so Liberal. I suggest that more people that can do this should. I would have moved to TX. But there was a good job opportunity in SD and at least it’s not NY:)
  
  Report this comment
- johnpaulkuchtajr
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 7:35am
  Pro-gun? Anti-gun? Well, you had better watch the following video before your fingers hit the keys:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&bpctr=1358310002
  
  Report this comment
- FMarion
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 10:00am
  I cannot wait to move out of New York. I hate this state so much I can feel it in my bones. What I feel is one of the worst parts of the bill is that now ammo purchases are now tracked and reported to the state police and kept on file for a year.
  
  Report this comment
- JediKnight
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:16pm
  @KRJones: The problem with Glenn’s scenario is that the “have your day in court” argument falls apart when you already know what they (the govt) will do.
  
  They’ll arrest you. They’ll hold you for 24 hours. During those 24 hours they’ll confiscate your firearms and search the rest of your house for any other incriminating evidence (thanks Patriot Act). They’ll release you after 24 hours or charge you with additional crimes. You’ll end up in court and either go to appeal after losing or win. But what will it matter? They will have succeeded in confiscating your firearms.
  
  They don’t have to arrest everyone at once. They can do it in small groups (say, 5 houses at a time).
  
  This is why I’m still not convinced by Glenn on this one. I won’t fire the first shot, but I won’t be arrested either. This is also why I’m happy to see these States standing up for our rights. Their citizens can say “I won’t go, you’ll have to take me”, lock the door, call the local police and let the Feds and the local cops fight it out.
  
  Report this comment
Tx8thRebel
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:14pm
Thank you Rep. Toth for your leadership on saving our rights. Like the folks in Gonzales said, “Come and Take It!”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TEXASGRANNY73
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:24am
  To the Blaze To answer your question, heck yes, I believe in state’s rights. The founders did. Needless to say but will anyway, I love my Texas. Thanks, Steve Toth and thanks Greg Abbott.
  
  Report this comment
- Witness1974
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 5:31am
  I can’t stand the weather, the bugs, and the snakes, but every day that goes by makes Texas more and more attractive.
  
  Report this comment
- starman70
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 8:47am
  I hope it passes and is signed by the governor. I just wonder how it will fare in the communistically inclined federal judiciary.
  
  Report this comment
bobbyjoe
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:13pm
“You can all go to H E L L, I’m going to Texas” said a relative of mine.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Tx8thRebel
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:07pm
Thank you Rep. Toth for your leadership on this. “Texas now! Texas Forever!”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
texanpatriot
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:54pm
On March 5, 1836, Col. William Barrett Travis drew a line in the sand at the Alamo and asked those who stood with him to join him.

It is time again — this time we on the inside will have the advantage. The time has come when the States (some at least) refuse once and for all to be driven by a bloated Federal Government which is drunk on unconstitutional power and couldn’t care less about its citizens.

Remember the Alamo…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Aegis
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:06pm
  Amen!
  
  Report this comment
- ltb
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:26pm
  I wonder how many people know that the Sandy Hook shooter didn’t even use an assault rifle. The murderer did have a rifle locked in the trunk of his car, but the weapons he actually used were pistols…. and yet, all these fascist liberal pigs have been talking about is how we need to confiscate assault rifles to prevent another Sandy Hook. Just think how easy it would be for Reid, Pelosi and Obama to boss around Americans if they didn’t have to worry about ticking off 150 million armed citizens.
  
  Report this comment
- thegreatcarnac
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:34pm
  Amen and Amen. We must not just talk…we must swear we will take action if necessary.
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:25pm
  PLEASE send that to Glenn !!!
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:30am
  http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
  
  I am an OATH KEEPER…THE TIME IS NOW!!!
  
  Report this comment
- TickedoffTexan
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 9:38am
  I can not make it back home to West Texas fast enough.
  
  Report this comment
- PathDan
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:44pm
  Amen
  
  Report this comment
1TrueOne55
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:47pm
States are allowed to do what they feel is correct for their citizens. What would be better is to call for a Constitutional Convention or for our Representatives in the Federal Gov’t to create an Amendment strengthening the Constitution and our Inalienable Rights guaranteed by God.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bonesiii
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:10pm
  There already is one — the tenth. :) It’s about electing people who care — or, as “we” did in 2012, who don’t…
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:50pm
  Do you really want to call for a Constitutional Convention? Do we even have the votes to protect ourselves from California, NY, WI and Il?
  
  Why do my el’s and eye’s end up looking the same? Here’s a small el – “l” and here’s a capital eye = “I”
  
  My sentence was typed to end with Illinois, but the way it’s presented on the Blaze, you either read it LLLinois, or Eye-eye-eye-nois…
  
  Report this comment
Clownzilla
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:46pm
It’s a sad day when I actually support states leaving the union. Sure, it won’t happen anytime soon but the federal government needs to understand that a LOT of things can happen 20 – 30 years down the road.I honestly think that if the states can keep fighting for state rights and raise kids to be proud of their state and their freedom there could be a realistic chance of secession in the future.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- spfoam1
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:09pm
  Forget about secession….clean up the federal government.
  
  Report this comment
- thegreatcarnac
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:36pm
  Secession is closer than 20 or 30 years. I guarantee it.
  
  Report this comment
- JoanofAmerica
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:47pm
  D.C. Needs some heroes… Some new founders.
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:18pm
  “the federal government needs to understand that a LOT of things can happen 20 – 30 years down the road.”
  
  They’ve known that for decades….why do you think we’re in the mess we’re in? Do you think them as ignorant as the ones that elected them?
  
  Report this comment
- JacquesChirac
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 3:13pm
  TheGreatCarnac – agreed.
  
  For those of you who can’t imagine it, read the Mike Church Show transcripts of “Secession Talk: Interview with Professor Donald Livingston”, dated Dec 24, 2012.
  
  Now THAT is something worth getting excited for!
  
  Report this comment
Dkoonz
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:42pm
God bless Texas.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- OlefromMN
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:50pm
  Amen!
  
  Report this comment
- gyro
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:56pm
  this
  
  Report this comment
cbrian1978
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:42pm
Of course they are within their rights. The 2nd Amendment is clearly stated and the Fed is overstepping it’s authority. The 2nd Amendment cannot be enforced by individuals alone, we must have the states leading the charge to be taken seriously. Individuals enforcing it alone will be met with quick and decisive action by the Fed, but with the states leading the charge it’s possible to defend the right without a “shot being heard around the world”.
The Obama bullies have no qualms picking on helpless citizenry, but watch how they squirm when confronted by entire state governments. Kinda hard to cover up dragging a governor out of his capital building and hauling him off to a camp.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
dublinthewagons
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:42pm
They better vote on it tonight. Now we need a bill passed to stop withholding federal income taxes and keep the money here. No exporting defined oil products or natural gas to democrat led states, unless there is a heavy tariff imposed.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
eat-more-bacon-USA
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:42pm
Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama –

http://www.infowars.com/citizens-file-article-of-impeachment-against-obama/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:50pm
  And soon obama will try to send us here…http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1062
  
  Report this comment
searching for the Truth
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:41pm
I would hope and pray , that by now people realize that there are spiritual forces working, not in the favor of man. Intuitively, many should have already recognized its design There are so many variables that exist now, more than perhaps, will be in any other time in history. All one has to due is connect the dots. Hopefully, man will awaken from his slumber and cease the momentum that has been undertaken; for the resulting apocalypse will only fair well for those who are saved by Christ alone.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Clownzilla
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:52pm
  What will happen is that those who practice evil will try to convince God that they really “intended” to do good. Unfortunitly, we are all naked when it comes to our souls and words will mean nothing.
  
  Report this comment
Cavallo
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:38pm
So that would make it legal to kill federal agents trying to take your weapons because they are in the act of committing a felony. Not to mention that most laws then can charge the surviving agents with murder since in most states if your accomplice dies in the act of committing a felony you are held responsible for his death. We need more states to adopt these laws!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Dirtdigger67
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:22pm
  I agree come on North Carolina !! But If I were a betting man Arizona will be next.
  
  Report this comment
- wzanesdad
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:42am
  I hope so. I surprised we weren’t first.
  
  Report this comment
NEL
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:38pm
http://gundetail.com/louisiana-passes-new-strict-scrutiny-gun-law/

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- NEL
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:43pm
  Louisiana Passes New “Strict Scrutiny” Gun Law by GunDetail • November 7, 2012
  
  The new “Strict Scrutiny” ballet measure, which easily passed on November 6th, will send a clear message to other states which have more restrictive gun laws. Louisiana now has the strongest gun laws in the nation and perhaps in the future, other states will pass similar laws.
  
  The new law makes owning and possessing firearms a fundamental right in Louisiana and makes it very difficult for the government to take a gun away from an individual. It prevents the state legislature from passing prohibitive conceal carry laws and requires that all gun laws be held to a strict judicial standard.
  
  The Strict Scrutiny law, now part of the state constitution, goes a long way to ensure judges can not undermine gun rights and requires them to ensure that state gun laws demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” and must be “narrowly defined”. If the law does not meet that standard, it must be thrown out and deemed unconstitutional. Dozens of restrictive gun laws may now be challenged because of this.
  
  The new law makes it more difficult for the state to regulate where people can and cannot carry concealed weapons, including public buildings and college campuses which was the basis of the argument for those who opposed this new law. Despite the opposition, the Strict Scrutiny law passed with an overwhelming 74% of the vote.
  
  A clear message indeed.
  
  November 7th 2012 – Gun
  
  Report this comment
- NEL
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:59pm
  This was passed in November. We may need to tweak it.
  
  Report this comment
- wzanesdad
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:47am
  WOW !!! that’s really an awesome law. Good for La.
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:38pm
““At some point there needs to be a showdown between the states and the federal government over the Supremacy Clause,” he said.”
(1) No, no there doesn’t need to be–it’s ABUNDANTLY clear. Where federal law is constitutionally valid, it trumps and preempts any contradictory law passed by the states or present in their constitutions. It’s REALLY not that complicated. If you have an issue with

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- spfoam1
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:52pm
  You said it yourself, smart guy “Where federal law is constitutionally valid…..”. Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are not constitutional, even if that Marxist you seem to worship thinks so.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:00pm
  Possession is 9/10ths of The Law.
  Come Get ‘em junior.
  
  Report this comment
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:03pm
  Agreed, SP. The 2nd Amendment renders any gun law which infringes upon my right to keep and bear arms illegal and unconstitutional. Auction apparently isn’t aware of the 2nd Amendment or he chooses to ignore it.
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:12pm
  I like you Archon, but I’d rather reserve the responsibility of protecting my family, friends, and property to me, thank you. In the utopian world of the hoplophobic gun-control freak, and angry mob of three descend on Archon’s house to set him and his family ablaze in it. Archon reaches into his safe for – his cellphone, and dials 9-11…
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:22pm
  *(1) No, no there doesn’t need to be–it’s ABUNDANTLY clear. Where federal law is constitutionally valid, it trumps and preempts any contradictory law passed by the states or present in their constitutions. It’s REALLY not that complicated. If you have an issue with federal enforcement of a gun control law, then your issue is with the constitutional interpretation of the Second Amendment, not the Supremacy Clause.
  (2) There already WAS said showdown and the states LOST.
  
  Report this comment
- noneed4govthelp
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:33pm
  Printz v. U.S. (521 U.S. 898) the U.S. Supreme Court
  
  The SC made several decisions limiting the supremacy clause. I’m not saying how this will go ,but they do have some grounds to fight if they choose.
  
  Report this comment
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:17pm
  Interpretation? What’s there to interpret about the 2nd Amendment? There is no interpretation. It’s black and white. Only an idiot or some one with an agenda can argue interpretation (I repeat myself).
  
  Report this comment
- castious
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:50am
  Ah 3r Acorn an executive order is not a law, you be careful now ya here or those squirrels will get ya.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuklz
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:14pm
  The Brady Bill was passed by Congress and signed in to law by President Clinton. This law, among other things, sought to force all sheriffs in the nation to promote gun control within their own jurisdictions with no funds being allocated for them to do this work. Additionally, The Brady Act even contained a provision to arrest the Sheriff should he fail to comply. At this time, Richard Mack, Sheriff from Graham County, Arizona, along with six other sheriffs from around the country (Sheriffs Koog from Texas, Frank from Vermont, Romero from Louisiana, McGee from Mississippi, Printz from Montana, and Anders from Wyoming) filed suit against the federal government with the assertion that the Brady Bill was an unconstitutional law.
  On June 27, 1997 they won their suit when the Supreme Court ruled that the Brady Bill was in fact unconstitutional stating that the federal government could not commandeer state or county officers for federal bidding. Justice Scalia asserted the following in the supreme court ruling:
  “The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other, a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two forms of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it…
  
  Report this comment
- Chuklz
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:21pm
  Befoire you spout any more of your supposed legal knowledge, you might want to check out the following regarding actual case law on the point of federal “supremacy” over the states and local sheriffs. It can found, in full, here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html
  
  SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
  ——————————————————————————–
  Nos. 95-1478 and 95-1503
  ——————————————————————————–
  JAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. UNITED STATES RICHARD MACK, PETITIONER 95-1503
  on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
  [June 27, 1997]
  
  Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
  
  The question presented in these cases is whether certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159, 107 Stat. 1536, commanding state and local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers and to perform certain related tasks, violate the Constitution.
  “Much of the Constitution is concerned with setting forth the form of our government, and the courts have traditionally invalidated measures deviating from that form. The result may appear `formalistic’ in a given case to partisans of the measure at issue, because such measures are typically the product of the era’s perceived necessity. But the Constitutio
  
  Report this comment
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:38pm
After I read the story of Wyoming’s legislation, I emailed it to my Representative in Ohio, Danny Bubp. I haven’t heard anything back, yet. He is one of two who helped pass Ohio’s conceal carry laws.
I would urge other Ohioans to do the same.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ginger100
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:38pm
Do you think Wyoming and Texas are within their rights to protect their states from federal gun control measures? HELL YEAH!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Advection
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:37pm
State’s rights is a beautiful thing!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The Third Archon
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:35pm
“PROPOSED LEGISLATION WOULD MAKE ENFORCING FUTURE GUN LAWS A FELONY IN TEXAS”
LOL, Texas–where would be without you to regularly make an example of to the rest of the states as to what is not constitutional.

Really, you’ think Texas thought it was a CONTEST to see who ride the law that was unconstitutional under the MOST number of different provisions of the Constitution. There are at least three reasons why a law like this would not be constitutional and would be outside Texas’ authority to pass and enforce:

(1) Texas law is inferior to federal law–the Texas legislature cannot pass a law that invalidates a federal law.
(2) The Texas legislature is not a court–the Texas legislature therefore cannot determine the constitutional validity of any law passed by the federal government (and actually believe it or not, a Texas state COURT could, subject to potential review by the federal courts, BUT this ISN’T a Texas court issuing a ruling, it’s the uppity Texas LEGISLATURE considering promulgation of a law).
(3) The Federal government has the constitutional authority to pass and enforce all laws necessary to the execution of constitutional federal laws. Therefore, unless and until any executive orders or federal gun control laws that MIGHT emerge are declared unconstitutional, it is within the purview of the federal government’s authority to enforce those laws–Texas having no legal right to interfere with said enforcement.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:40pm
  The 2nd Amendment says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any law which infringes on that is illegal and unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:43pm
  And although you make a flowery argument that smells like a French w h o r e
  for your pimp the Federal government —- the thing it DOES NOT trump is THE PEOPLE:
  
  “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
  
  Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
  
  Report this comment
- legendarytwo
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:48pm
  So what, half the crap Obama has done is illegal. What about that brainchild. There is going to be a showdown somewhere before this is over.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:51pm
  States can pass any laws they want. Federal judges will stay Obama’s unconstitutional power grab, while the US Congress proceed with impeachment proceedings. Meanwhile, millions of weapons will fly off store shelves and into the heads of patriots.
  
  And I predict the Congress will look at changing the laws regarding executive orders. It’s high time to castrate the Executive Branch.
  
  Report this comment
- jsplaine
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:00pm
  you clearly don’t understand the constitution. A law that is unconstitutional is mot a law regardless of what the eggheads in DC spew out. The 2nd amendment was drafted solely to protect individuals from the tyrrany of Govt. Secondly the Constitution placed most power within the States and evem moreso with the municipalities and individuals. Your spew is ignorant. Why have a Constitution to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS if all laws are uniform across the nation? Uniform laws are a violation of the Constitution, it is ignorance that has allowed this situation to occur. Indoctrinated Obama-Trolls such as yourself cannot see the self inflicted bondage you support..
  
  Report this comment
- dublinthewagons
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:04pm
  Archon: you state a wonderful point. There may be a lot of openings for federal enforcers as there will be a lot in Texas jails. May I suggest you apply for one of the jobs and bring your smell azz down here and enforse what your mouth has overloaded your bu** with. We’ll have a party
  
  Report this comment
- jsplaine
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:16pm
  Me Thinks Third Reich is a “USELESS” Idiot rather than a Usefull one…
  
  Report this comment
- RDMercer
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:43pm
  Wonder what happened to the first and second Archons? Probably ran their mouths and got dealt with.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:51pm
  “The 2nd Amendment says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any law which infringes on that is illegal and unconstitutional.”
  Devil’s in the details. For starters, the FULL text of the Second Amendment is as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” What that MEANS legally speaking is only and exactly what the last highest ranked federal court SAID it means. And they DON’T hold the Second Amendment grants an unlimited right to any firearm or weapon you should desire at any time and place, without any legal restrictions, requirements, or legal regulations.
  @BODYBAG
  (1) If you think the LAW allows for the state of Texas to pass a law criminalizing the enforcement of a federal law by federal officials that has not been declared unconstitutional then you, are, retarded (and also completely ignorant of American law).
  (2) If you are talking about insurrection, well then that’s an entirely DIFFERENT matter–an EXTRA-legal, to put it politely, means of enforcing your rights claim. My point was SOLELY that it is not a LEGAL action under American law for an abundance of reasons.
  (3) The D of I was against a foreign state across an ocean over 200 years ago–things are A LITTLE different in the scenario you are imagining (and Texas, on its own, would NOT beat the United States in an armed conflict).
  
  Report this comment
- Magyar
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:54pm
  @mister—————–BINGO!
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:02pm
  @ADVECTION
  Yes technically states can pass any laws they want to–my point dealt with what is LEGALLY valid, not with what can be done then overturned.
  @JSPLAINE
  (1) A law is not unconstitutional until a court of proper jurisdiction declares it so. Your opinion of it’s constitutionality, your interpretation of the Second Amendment–none of that matters to the law. The only thing that matters LEGALLY is what the last highest ranking court of proper authority has said on the matter. All I’m making is a LEGAL point, nothing more, nothing less–ironic how convinced the people who know the LEAST about what law is are that they know the MOST about it.
  (2) Yes, at its inception the Constitution did firmly lodge the balance of power in the hands of the States–200+ years and a Civil War passed during the intervening period, and the government of today is not the government of 1781. It might be an overly broad statement to say the federal government has MORE authority and power (legal or otherwise) than the states in AGGREGATE today, but it CERTAINLY has a LOT more, that is LEGALLY recognized as legitimate (whether YOU think it should be is, again, irrelevant to the fact that it IS), than it did at its inception.
  (3) “Uniform laws are a violation of the Constitution”
  LOL! Now THAT’S a completely random, arbitrary, legally baseless, and patently absurd bald assertion.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:10pm
  @DUBLINTHEWAGONS
  LOL–yeah, good luck with that. Texas might TALK a big game, but I SERIOUSLY doubt it would go through the trouble of passing a law it KNOWS will just be struck down (and you’d have to mentally deficient to think that a law criminalizing enforcement of a federal law not held to be unconstitutional would not be unconstitutional under American law–you really do not need to KNOW much about American law, or law in general for that matter, to realize that, just have BASIC COMMON SENSE. You REALLY think ANY legal system would have inside it the legal authority for laws to criminalize enforcement of valid laws?). And Texas wouldn’t take the time to pass a law that it KNEW would be struck down if it had no intention of ignoring the federal ruling and precipitating a conflict with the federal government–and it DEFINITELY won’t do that because for ALL it’s bluster, TEXAS is on the Gulf of Mexico and has ZERO Aircraft Carriers, whereas the United States has 11 Aircraft Carriers and counting. Texas would be a glass desert in a week. And even as stupid as they are, they’ve GOT to know THAT.
  
  Report this comment
- MisterSarcastic
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 11:33pm
  Last post on this.
  I don’t care what some court decides. Gun laws are still illegal and unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- BODYBAG
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:05am
  @THE TURD SWALLOWER
  (1) If you think the LAW allows for the state of Texas to pass a law criminalizing the enforcement of a federal law by federal officials that has not been declared unconstitutional then you, are, retarded (and also completely ignorant of American law).
  ——————————————————-
  THEY”RE DOING IT junior. Argue with that.
  
  Report this comment
- rc30
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 1:12am
  The Third Archon
  
  I think you are right 100%. I’m from Michigan and moved too Texas in 09. If they pass a law here you miss the point of them doing it. They are not dumb hicks here trust me on that. Its to force the FED hand and make a point. People down here stand for what they belive. You my friend don’t understand what this can lead to. I can tell you this they will not give up there guns and should not have too. A ban on how many bullets a mag can have. A ban on any type of gun trying to miss with ammo. You might as well try and take them. People here will work 15 hour days 7 days a week. Not afraid to get there hands dirty will tell you too your face what they think. Not all but most will keep there word on hand shake. If they pass this law it will be too prove a point and I don’t where it will go from there.
  Writen by a dumb yankee who can’t spell but happy as hell to be in the great state of TEXAS..
  
  Report this comment
- wzanesdad
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 2:17am
  archon,
  You obviously have a good handle on the law and seem to be a thinking man , as opposed to the typical troll we get on here. Surely you can see what is happening to this great country and where all of this is leading. Why don’t you change sides and come over to the light?
  
  Report this comment
JUSTANOTHEROPINION
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:34pm
It is every State’s right and obligation to protect the rights of it’s citizenry afforded them under the Constitution of the United States Of America.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Catfish
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:34pm
Yes I think they are within there rights and I wish they would make the same kind of law that would stop obamacare from being inforced in Texas Oh by the way I live in Texas , I wish there was a way to secede from this union of take everything from the working people and give it to the blacks and Mexicans who will not work., one comment, the Bible says if you wont work then you should not eat.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The-Monk
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:34pm
“Do you think Wyoming and Texas are within their rights to protect their states from federal gun control measures?”

Yes.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- PatriotSunDevil
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 10:23pm
  I double that yes and raise you a yes!!
  
  Report this comment
- Snaker
  Posted on January 16, 2013 at 12:40pm
  Absolutely YES! … And if YOU don’t already live in one of those states…?
  Please stay where you are… don’t come here… tee hee…. We already have
  enough Cali-fornicators, and Newwww Yorrrrrrkies here……
  
  Report this comment
MisterSarcastic
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:33pm
The 2nd Amendment says these states are within their rights but I doubt the Feds will let them get away with it. The Feds don’t seem to care that much about Constitutional law anymore.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
spfoam1
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:32pm
It’s a good start. It’s nice to live in Texas during times like this.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Live_Free_orDie
  Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:38pm
  Man…I wish I could move there. Damn Damn Damn!!!!
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on January 15, 2013 at 9:32pm
“When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
——- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

Citizens File Articles of Impeachment Against Obama
http://www.infowars.com/citizens-file-article-of-impeachment-against-obama/

“There can no longer be any doubt – the forces of tyranny are running wild across our once great Republic. The time has come for all good men and women to rally to the aid of their country. We have now entered a historic crossroads that will decide the destiny of the United States. Arrogance and corruption has long festered in Washington DC, but the last decade has seen an extreme acceleration of criminal looting and attacks on liberty – every freedom is under sustained assault.”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.