Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Texas proposes criminalizing the enforcement of federal gun control laws

Written By: Bob - Feb• 20•13

It’s not as good as criminalizing the proposal of gun control laws in Missouri, but it has a better chance of becoming actual law:

Police officers could be charged with a crime for enforcing new federal gun control laws in Texas under a proposal by a lawmaker who acknowledges the measure likely would end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

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.

Toth’s law seems expressly designed to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, at which points the precedents of Miller and Heller should—in a rational world—knock federal gun control back on its heels, and serve as a basis to target state and local laws currently being proposed around the nation.

Depending on how the court decides such a pending challenge, it may also serve as a basis for challenging other federal gun control laws, such as the Hughes Amendment to FOPA ’86 that outlawed the sale of new selective-fire and machine guns to the general public, and perhaps even parts of NFA’ 34 and GCA ’68 themselves.

At least a guy can dream.

Law-abiding citizens should be able to acquire the same small arms used by the standing military in order to have parity with those forces in order to fulfill the purpose of the United States.

Now, should every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a clean criminal record be able to purchase a  m240G general purpose machine gun?

The fact of the matter is that they already can according to federal law, if they’re willing to undergo the scrutiny needed to pass the requisite background and comply with the storage requirements. I’d like to see the process streamlined so that it takes less time, is less expensive, and does not require local LEO sign-off. Otherwise, the system has worked well for machine guns for 79 years.

Short-barreled rifles and shotguns, however, and suppressors all have obvious militia (and in the case of suppressors, public health and safety benefits) use, and should be removed as  NFA items entirely. SBRs ans SBSs should be treated as any other firearm, and suppressors shouldn’t be viewed as a a firearm at all, but treated as any other over-the-counter accessory.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

8 Comments

  1. Comrade X says:

    For those of you in Washington state:

    Today, House Bill 1588, legislation that could criminalize private sales of firearms and lead to handgun registration, was amended and reported by the House Judiciary Committee by a 7-6 vote. HB 1588 is now headed to the House Rules Committee before going to the floor of the state House of Representatives. It is imperative that you contact your state Representatives and the members of the House Rules Committee TODAY and urge them to oppose HB 1588…..

    http://wallawallateapartypatriots.blogspot.com/2013/02/nra-ila-alert-hb1588-heads-for-house.html

    Death before slavery!

  2. Steven says:

    I’ve seen a worrying proposal that many “low information” voters will a) never “get” b) won’t see a problem with c) is a heck of good sneaky way to get a gun registration:

    Making it mandatory for all gun owners to carry $1 Million in liability insurance – which will likely necessitate the owner taking pictures of and recording and transmitting the serial #’s for their firearms.

    On the promise of and premise of “of course we’d NEVER require insurance companies to turn over those records” (unless and until we do …. during “an emergency” don’t ya know).

  3. Honeybadger says:

    Now Comcast is refusing to run commercials for businesses selling firearms.
    Check this out.

    http://www.guns.com/2013/02/20/comcast-snubs-gun-industry-refuses-to-air-gun-related-commercials-video/

    Maybe its time to go back to dish network.

  4. Cole says:

    Someone, I think it was Biden, was lamenting that if those of us that bothered to read the 2nd amendment had our way we could all own flamethrowers! And rich people could buy fighter jets! And I thought… sure why not? Why do I care if my law-abiding neighbor has a flamethrower? Or if a rich guy buys a fighter jet? Other than WMD citizens should have access to any piece of weaponry that the military does. The fact that we can’t, or have to face heavy burdens to obtain them, shows the giant infringements on our liberty we already face. We have the 2nd amendment to fight off a tyrannical federal government. Why does the federal government have any say in what we firearms we own? I want my full auto Thompson submachine gun. And I want it now! #StoptheWaronGuns

  5. Comrade X says:

    The music is a little weird at first but I like this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1OTg8Bx3Yw&list=UUYvlBEeEEoJE8uP7WWzPmnA&index=4

    Death before slavery!

  6. louielouie says:

    as the executive branch of gov’t is the only remaining federal level, this legislation will be DOA in the supposed scotus.

  7. Jim C. says:

    Just so you guys know, Missouri has a bill already introduced that makes it a Class D felony for any state, local, or FEDERAL officials, agents or employees to try to enforce any federal gun law that is more restrictive than what was in effect on Dec. 31, 2012. It was introduced in January, and the state senate version has already been heard by a senate committee, early in February. It got a very friendly reception.

    Yes, MO has a Dem governor. Both houses of our legislature, however, have super-majorities of Reps controlling them. The governor’s veto can, and will, be overridden.

    In addition, just this week another bill was introduced that makes it a felony for a state legislator to introduce a bill restricting MO citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights. It will never pass, but that gives you an idea of the current gun control climate here in MO.

  8. Rob in Katy says:

    I wish that Texas would also push though an open carry law, just to drive the progtards a little more batshit crazy!