Thursday, February 21, 2013

Texas To Stop Enforcement Of New Federal Gun Laws

New Bill In Texas State Capitol Stops Local Enforcement Of New Federal Gun Laws

First off, why is the Federal Government expecting States to enforce Federal Laws?

If the Federal Government wants to make laws - then they should be the ones to enforce them. States should no be responsible for having to enforce Federal Laws. 

Using that logic, under a measure in the Texas Capitol, local police officers could be convicted of a crime for enforcing any new federal gun control laws.

Rep. Steve Toth, a newly elected Republican from the Woodlands, said his proposal would prevent officers from carrying out any future federal orders to confiscate assault rifles and ammunition magazines.

"There's a federal law, there's a 30-round magazine right in front of you - what do I do?" Toth said in an interview. The measure known as the Firearm Protection Act "answers that question in spades," he said. It moved Tuesday to the House Committee on Federalism.

President Barack Obama has proposed federal laws banning such weapons, but no such laws currently exist. If they are indeed Federal Laws, then the FBI or some other Federal law enforcement agency - and there are many - should get off their backsides and try enforce them without using State time, money and personnel to do their job. 

And why be selective about it, if pot is a Federal crime than have the FBI or whoever else enforce those federal laws pertaining to marijuana. Just because Obama was a drug user and pot smoker, should that mean that he will call of his federal law enforcement from enforcing federal laws in say Colorado where the State is now saying its legal.

The word out of Washington DC is that they are not going after the Federal law breakers in Colorado because the Obama administration is in favor of legalizing drugs and pot.

The opposite is true for a state which let's say would legalize the ownership of "machine guns". The feds would be all over it because they want to see gun banned altogether. And yes, the feds would request local police to assist them in the enforcement of the federal law prohibiting the ownership of "machine guns" unless properly licensed.

The states are having budget problems. How many states would save money if they told the federal government to enforce their own laws while the states tended to only theirs?

Rep. Steve Toth's proposal would create a Class A misdemeanor for police officers enforcing any new federal gun regulations.

It also would establish cause for the state attorney general to sue anyone who seeks to enforce new federal gun regulations. It is one of several states-rights measures being offered by conservative state lawmakers nationwide in response to federal gun control proposals.

Courts have long upheld the federal government's right to enact new laws, which generally supersede state law.

After the Civil War, during the Reconstruction Period, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution were passed. With these Amendments, it became spelled out that a state cannot make a law that supersedes a federal law - the concept being that we are Americans first before being citizens of a state.

The 14th Amendment specifically was designed to stop a state from say making slavery legal. But at the same time, the federal government must enforce its own laws without the assistance of the states - especially if that state is keeping its law within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution.

Asked how legal precedent for the supremacy of federal law would affect enforcement of his bill, Toth said he expects a legal challenge.

"It may end up in the Supreme Court," he said.

One point of interest is the question of just how does the federal government get the state police agencies to enforce federal laws when in fact no state laws are being broken?

And really, other than staying within the parameters of the U.S. Constitution, why would any state have to do what the federal government orders them to do?

Federal police agencies in every state to enforce federal laws? A centralized Big Brother federal government telling people what to do and how to act? The complete loss of state's rights?

Are these things possible? Should anyone at the state, county, or local levels of government be taking orders from Big Brother Federal Government?

Isn't is enough that states meet federal "guidelines" so that states don't violate a citizen's U.S. Constitutional rights?

Why should a state assist the federal government when it is violating an American citizen's Constitutional rights? I say let the feds enforce their own laws, and if they are violating the Constitution, then it will be for a federal court to decide if the federal government actually has the authority they think they have.

Several recently elected lawmakers gathered at a news conference Tuesday with Toth and Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who successfully contested implementation of certain provisions of the Brady gun laws in the 1990s.

"The federal government is not our boss," Mack said. "If there's any place that that's applicable and true, it's the state of Texas."

Referring to Greg Abbott, the attorney general who helped draft the bill, Mack added: "And we've got a great attorney."

And yes, I agree. The federal government is not our boss.

Now, how do we make them understand that?

Story by Tom Correa

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment.