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.