Does anyone have any news on the HB 421?

It died without ever getting out of committee.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/history.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB421

It's one of those bills solely designed to pander to ill informed constituents.
As with all state "firearm freedom laws" it is 100% meaningless.
Federal law clearly regulates interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court has been pretty consistent for decades in ruling that intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce........and therefore subject to Congressional regulation.

I pisses me off that our state legislators waste their short time in Austin filing bills that will not improve the lives of Texans.
But they will continue to do this shit because the politician can crow about all the work he's done for the 2nd Amendment.

ETA:  I fubared the quote block....


Well we don't exactly see the DEA concentrating on CO do we?  So with the Feds it's a matter of what they want to enforce.  The ICC was never intended to be used as it is, it was only intended to prevent the states from discriminating against goods produced outside of the state.  It was not intended to be used as a justification for regulation of criminal activity.

One theory as to why the feds aren't going after CO weed is they're afraid the ICC could get gutted, thus gutting the Fed's biggest claim to power.  And it's a viable theory because  the USSC conservatives would band with the liberals albeit for different reasons and limit Fed power via the ICC.  Firearms are not that case......

Tom, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement above. I would agree that the ICC would be the primary tool used by the Feds. The ICC is one of the most heavily abused clauses used to centralize power by the federal govt.

However, while this will almost certainly lose in the sort term tactical sense, it would one of many needed contributions to the over all strategic goals of states rights advocacy. Ive read the text of the bill and it outlines the plain and simple language of the US constitution. The more state nullification laws we get passed, the better.

I've spent the last 15 years learning politics in the corporate world (but applies to all political battles) and one thing I've learned is how to give the enemy rope to hang themselves. When it seems all other avenues have failed, we negotiate compromises that I know have no chance of changing the specific behavior of people that are creating problems for the org. The overall goal is to bring attention to them and create metrics of accountability. When they fall on their face and everyone sees it, it starts to change hearts and minds so that action can be taken against the people creating problems. But is is a very LONG game.

I get your point,

but I like when they waste time on meaningless stuff,

it means they spend less time on stuff that takes more of my money.

Montana went through with it. The ATF responded about Federal law superseding their state law. Plenty of "Made in Montana" firearms and suppressors over there now and no infringement coming from the Feds. Just saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act

It would appear from the link you posted that Montana has lost it's court case. They lost an appeal int the 9th circuit and SCOTUS decided not to hear the case thereby upholding the 9th's decision.

Just to be clear, are you saying that folks are making guns in Montana without a federal license to do so and the Feds are ignoring it?

Law is a waste of time.

If you want something useful, remove firearms from prohibited weapons and other regulations.

"Made in Montana" is inconsequential and 100% legal.
What IS illegal is engaging in the manufacturing of firearms without an 07FFL or making/manufacturing silencer or other NFA firearms without paying the tax.

And BTW, is someone bragging about making their own suppressors without a tax stamp? That's a felony and means that person will never be able to own or possess a firearm again.

Not to mention stupid.

One of these days in the near future something will happen where some of you wake up and realize you are going to have to choose to be law abiding or an outlaw. You may also have to decide what is more important, your state or the federal government. (it goes both ways for CA, MA, CT) The boogeyman complex is what controls you. I am just going to end it at that.

Horseshit.
Go back to listening to Alex Jones.

OK, you made me LOL IRL......

thanks

Go back to being a cuck.

One day in the near future something will happen where you will wake up and realize you are going to have to choose to follow the COC or be an outlaw.
I guess today was that day.

Check out the Massachuestts AG's news from last week.

Which has what to do with this thread?
The Massachusetts AG's actions are from a state who's laws are more restrictive than Federal law.  Her interpretation likely won't stand.
Cities, counties, states can always be more restrictive than Federal law as long as they do not violate Federal law.
Anyone that thinks a city, county or state can exempt themselves from Federal law needs to repeat high school.

While I agree,
That sort of depends who is in charge, though, right?

I see a bunch of cities and states exempting themselves right now.....
.
sanctuary cities and now drug laws.

I've had many discussions with both Federal and Calofornia DOJ about this, basically Federal law sets the floor of laws, but states and local governments can enact laws above Federal laws. Now if a state has preemption both Texas and Californis do, cities and counties can not enact tougher laws other than say a zoning law on where say a gun store is located. Not all states have preemption so when you are traveling you can be legal in one county or city and break the law entering a city, such as New York

I guess there are people on this board who do not understand Federal floor law and state laws above it. A state for example can not make a law that supressors don't need to follow NFA laws, but to write a law above (more strict) a state could and quite few do make possession of a supressors illegal.

One thing to understand is many states pass a law and leave enforcement and details open to the A.G. Prime example of this is the Californis 'junk gun' ban. Bill Lockyer the A.G. decided each model gun must pass all the tests to be sold, so two 1911's one parkerized, one blued and one stainless must each be put through the test, which was quite expensive. The bill when written left it open to interpretation and Bill Lockyer hated citizens to own guns.

Wrong.
No state or local law is "above" Federal law. It is exactly opposite.

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that state nullification laws are a waste of time. I do agree that that it would get struck down by SCOTUS and it will mean nothing in the short term, but that is not how this battle is going to be played. I'll explain more below.




When the federal govt starts to defy the constitution, you just don't throw you hands up and say "well that's the law of the land".

The states created the federal govt to deal with a handful of very limited issues. They never wrote the constitution so that the Federal government could become our masters. The men who authored it did not want the federal gov to become like the monarchies of Europe where everything was managed by a tyrannical centralized authority.

The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states or even to you and I. The BoR was meant to restrain the federal govt. You and me are supposed to be governed by the constitution of the state we are residents of. The BoR starts with "Congress shall make no law...", as in the federal govt not the states. To further add to that the 10th amendment makes it clear that the fed is not supposed to be what it is today -

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But people have figured out how to throw them back on the states, main through activist judges. Here's a good read on that for those that are interested -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

We all know that SCOTUS is intellectually corrupt and acting way outside it's authority, for example when they create laws. Just because they say "this is the way it is" does not make it final. All it means it it is the final avenue via the court system and it is time look at other avenues. We are starting to see those next steps, some are within the constitutional process such as amendments to start restoring the autonomy of the states, others are simply ignoring the overreach of the federal govt such as with state nullification. Look at how Texas is preparing to defy the Obama "choose your own bathroom" mandate for schools even though the consequence is loosing federal funding.

Each one of these steps are will be more drastic (and painful) than the previous. But like any political battle you must walk through each step so that people can see the the response of your adversary. This is the way you start to win hearts and minds for building support for every following step.



Well Louisiana is not within the boarders of Texas, so that would fall under the authority of SCOTUS under article 3, sec 2 as "Controversies between two or more States". That is totally different than an object that is manufactured within the boarders of the state.


That is covered in the text of the bill -

Sec. 2003.004.  EXCEPTIONS. This chapter does not apply to:
             .......
             (4)  any firearm that is capable of shooting more than
two shots automatically, without manual reloading, by a single
function of the trigger.



Political battles in the corporate world and government world have a tremendous amount of overlap. The only difference is the constituency.

The only "improvement" my life needs is less governmental involvement in it.

As far as I'm concerned, Texans would be better served if our state legislators wasted their entire time in Austin - Or better yet, just stayed home.

Very well said.

My point was, that at this time,
the person who is in charge has directed that the Feds will take no action in Colorado re: Federal marijuana law.
so, even as federal law remains unchanged, the selective enforcement of the law,
has the effect of supporting the right of the state to exempt themselves since they are not following Federal law.

as for illegals, yes, cities and states do not enforce immigration laws,
but they enforce criminal laws, and if someone is arrested for a criminal act,
and they are also determined to be in the country illegally, the arresting entity is supposed to inform ICE.

If they do report and ICE fails to act, that is on the Feds, but if they chose to not inform ICE, that is on them.

I understand what you are getting at, but not necessarily true. Imagine if they stayed home during 1995, then we wouldn't have concealed carry. If they stay home in 2007 we would not have castle doctrine or permit less carry in your vehicle. Or last year we wouldn't have open carry.

If they had stayed home in previous years, we wouldn't have had laws prohibiting any of those things in the first place.

Unfortunately carrying of firearms open or concealed had been banned in Texas since Reconstruction. The Democrats that ran Texas didn't want the blacks and Mexicans to get all 'uppity'

Castle doctrine was passed in 2007. Castle Law has been around since forever.

If we keep bending over for these "laws" we might as well just turn our guns in.

What the hell is a cuck?

It's short for cuckold: the husband of an adulterous wife.

I've seen it being used a lot lately....generally in political discussions.