Texas To Test Sovereignty: Exempt Firearms from Feds

Doc says: Too many don't know the details of the "Waco Massacre". I have a copy of the original coverage of that trvesty before it got the big news blackout. For someone concerned with gun-rights, it is very illuminating. First, let me identify myself as a Viet Nam veteran who saw heavy combat...please believe me that I know the distinctive sound of an operating M-2, (Ma Deuce), .50 cal. machine gun. After carefully listening to the entire debacle, I can inform you that no .50 was ever fired during the slaughter of those poor people. When it was over, Texas authorities were denied access to the site for two full days. Why? When finally to enter, Texas authorities were shown two burned up .50 cal. machine guns alledgedly owned and used by these "dangerous Branch Davidians". I can solve the mystery of the audio track of the massacre never reveals the distinctive sound of this relatively slow rate of fire fully automatic weapon. Two days is the length of time it would take for the feds to requisition two .50s from an army arms room, place them on a stack of wooden pallets, burn them up, coll them off, transport them, and plant them at the scene of their crime! So, just like BK Campbell, I get sick every time I think of Waco, and what happened the last time liberals were "large and in charge"!!

Anna M. Tinsley should get her facts straight - Gov Perry said Suceeding wasn't the answer but reaserting States Rights is! There is a difference. Do some more homework Ms. Tinsley.

Just try to take guns from Texans - not going to happen.

As we move closer to the new world order that the globlests envision for us, the idea of secession will become more remote and the idea of trying to keep our sovernty in the United States will move to the front.In the end we will not only lose our right to own guns, we will lose our right to govern ourselves. Sure we will still have the right to vote but it will mean nothing. Foreign Courts will make decision about our laws, and thoughs courts will not even be apart of our government. If anyone has read the Book 1984, they will know what I mean. Even Ben Franklin new what the normal course of events would be. When, after the signing of the Constitution, Ben Franklin's wife asked Ben what kind of Government he had given us, Ben said: A Constitutional Republic if you can keep it. We couldn't!

You can bet as soon as this law is passed Texas will be the biggest contributor new job creations anywhere in the country, along with a huge migration of new patriots a housing boom, non tarp local bank loans and a red white and blue respect for the lone star states resolve to exercise her right to bear arms protect its sovereignty and its citizens from anybody who dares to try and take freedoms many fought and died for.. Texas is a unique brand of people & although it took me a few years to get here, I finally made it and ill be here to fight the good fight when called, Hey DAN in Texas most Men Women & Children know how to handle a firearm Im assuming you don't & just cause you don't, don't mean the rest of us are sheep.. ya'll I hope they open a few new Gun Manufactures here in my area too! I need a new hunting rife. God Bless Texas!!!

Listening and reading, the one thing I've noticed of the second amendment is that some read it as a none stop line. What it says broken down:

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.

If the State does elect to leave you can bet a lot of Texans that are elsewhere in the US will be going home in very short order.

You can take us out of Texas, but you can't take Texas out of us. :)

Im not from Texas but I love that spirit !! If you secede, I will move done there. My favorite story is about a Liberal who said he couldn't stand living in the Dallas area and left. They must be doing something right.

Monorprise Texas indeed has a rich history. I have no doubts that during the Waco seige, if allowed to any number of Texas law enforcment officals would have volunteered to walk up and knock on the door even after the shooting began and find a peaceful solution that everyone could accept. Koresh was not crazy just ahead of his time. I don't wish to dig up bones I just know southeners and I know Texans and that whole fiasco could have been avoided if the Federal Govt and wanted it to be avoided. It still makes me sick to think about.

Anyone who thinks Texans are not serous about their guns need to learn something of Texas History. The Texas Revolution started because Mexico tried to take their guns. That is where the flag "come and take it" comes from.

This is not a laughing matter, this is a deadly serous matter of Texas identity, history and values.

More than any other State in the union, Texas has an historical, political, and cultural imperative to protect their gun rights at any and all cost.

Montana and Utah both have nothing on Texas in comparison for historic and cultural justification for the defense of gun rights. Nether Montana nor Utah ever started a Revolution over the matter, Texas did, and Texas won that revolution.
The Federal Government would be most wise not to force her to start anther one.

The issue I see is that govt is failing to serve the people as was the Founder's plan. I agree that we the people do have the right to disband the govt regardless of said govt passing a law that says we cant (disband or secede or anything else). The Federal govt was put in place by the states and the states can disband it. States joined the Union voluntarily. If the Northern States would have said we wont allow slavery, the southern states would not have joined the Union.

There are historical interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and just because a govt can put judges put in place that interpret the law as they see fit doesnt change the interpretation as was intended by the Founder's. We seem to be getting govts (both parties) who do not uphold the constitution but interpret as they see fit to benefit themselves or their backers. This is the govt that the people voted in but that doesnt give the govt a blank check to do as they please. This movement is about states reminding the Federal govt of States rights. It is long overdue and is not about taking our ball and going home because we lost an election. We the people have been losing elections for years regardless of which party was elected. The govt is bloated and over-reaching and is riding the backs of productive people with excessive taxation and regulation. Both parties have been deficit spending since the gold standard ended.

This is another issue that would be nice to see on this site. States are proposing real money bills too. If I ineterpret the whole movement correctly, I think states are waking up to the fact that the Federal govt is sending us into bankruptcy. The country was founded on a Federal govt with limited responsibility. We have let it grow way too large and intrusive and I think the pendulem needs to swing back the other way. This makes be a Right Wing Extremist along with the Founder's :-)

Oops thought I was on this site and posted this on the Alaska site.

I’ve got 7 acres of pines and oaks in the middle of Ms. (and also the middle of nowhere) that I will trade for 5 acres anywhere in Texas

Oops thought I was on this site and posted this on the Alaska site.

I’ve got 7 acres of pines and oaks in the middle of Ms. (and also the middle of nowhere) that I will trade for 5 acres anywhere in Texas

Great post from everyone. Although I disagree with much of what Jon has to say on the Sovereignty movement in general, We need to hear from the skeptics because these are the type arguments that will be debated nationally.
The Alaska Resolution has passed house and senate and is on the way to Gov. Palins desk. I will make the first bid at $100.00 for that pen.

"...if the Supreme Court rules against it that the people can just decide to ignore that ruling, nor is that allowed in the eyes of our constitution."
I'm not sure what the reference to the constitution means here. Are you saying the constitution does not allow the people to ignore the Supreme Court? I challenge that, considering the Supreme Court wasn't created by the Constitution. Congress created the Supreme Court, the Court in turn ruled it could interpret the Constitution, then declared itself constitutional.
The Constitution is a contract, thus, it is not open to 'interpretation', not a living document. If the people need clarification on the language used in the document there is plenty of literature available from the original authors. You do not need nine guys in black robes, you just need to know how to read.

Jon
So the only way to leave a voluntary association is to get permission from the overlords? An individual can renounce their citizenship and expatriate. A state is merely a group of individuals. The Supreme Court is wrong in claiming the states have no right to secession. The right is inherent in the social contract between the people and government.
The Tenth amendment is pretty clear, in the limitation of federal authority. So, the States do not need to pass anymore amendments to reclaim their sovereignty.
You mention "the democratic process", which is simply the tyranny of the majority. In a REPUBLIC, the states are left to govern themselves, and 51% of the people cannot tell the 49% how to live.

Jon, You miss a couple of things.

By definition, a militia is a group of private citizens with their own arms called upon to defend their local area in an emergency. The old west "posse" was a good example of a militia.

Combined with the remaining portions of the Second, it is extremely clear that gun ownership IS protected and that ANY law restricting it is illegal.

I realize that some don't like guns, that fine. You don't have to own one. But you may not tell me to outsource my right to protect myself, my family, and my property.

Jon Your points are well taken and I certainly do not wish to get into arguing legal issues with you because I am not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar.
If I am reading not only the Texas Resolution but others states right as well, they are using the ninth and tenth amendment to say any legislation up to this point that violates either of those amendments will be considered null and void.
As far as comparing us to rebellious teens, let me just say we are 21 and the car belongs to us so dad cannot ground us or take the keys away any longer. I wouldn't call 30 states and counting "teenagers" and certainly not to their face:)

The resolution proposed there doesn't have any statement in it saying if the Supreme Court rules against it that the people can just decide to ignore that ruling, nor is that allowed in the eyes of our constitution. The Courts have, basically, final say on judicial overview, and, their rulings and interpretations on a case or of the constitution is what is adopted and accepted on any level, federal or state or local. The only way to limit the courts power is for your elected officials in Congress to impose legislation limiting what the courts can rule on or increasing the number of justices.

After the civil war (or Second American Revolution as some like to refer to it), it was ruled by the Supreme Court that states do not have the right to secede from the Union. That hasn't been overturned yet, there is no legal way for a state to secede, nor any legal way for a state to not defer to the decisions of Congress and the Supreme Court. The only legal way for a state to secede is to have Congress amend the current constitution to allow a state out, or a path for states to leave on their own, or for a successful revolution. All these various bills testing the sovereignty of the state seems to be largely political posturing and whining about results they don't like, even if they are the results of the democratic process which is so held up by those individuals at the same time. What would be more influential, instead of like a rebellious teenager who is trying to test the limits of authority, is for a state legislature to propose and ratify amendments to the federal constitution through referendum of the states legislatures (which requires a 3/4 vote of the states to confirm it, but in terms of politics, just the threat of bringing it to the table can be enough to actually get policy change which, at that point, couldn't be deemed illegal by the courts).

Jon I indeed misquoted our Constitution and should have the dociment here in front of me if I plan to quoute. Correct me (again) If I am wrong but doesn't the language in the Resoultion also declare that if the Supreme Court rules against the will of the people that their ruling will be ignored? I may be wrong here as well but it seems to me this is the language if not in the Texas resolution then in some of the others I have read. Hopefully I hope our Federal Gov. would not make the mistake Linclon made and try to force their will upon the people. That conflict was totally unconstitutional but do we really trust the Feds. to do the right thing? If your from Texas then Waco should still be fresh in your mind.

Just wanted to make a quick note on BK Campbell's statement of it being in the Constitution that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the ownership of guns." That is blatantly false. Reading of the second amendment is "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." There is no mention of Congress or gun ownership. The nature of gun regulation and laws prohibiting gun ownership walks a line of interpretation of this amendment which, at the highest level, is up to the Supreme Court of the United States to provide, if the people feel a certain law is inherently unconstitutional.

Regardless, if there is a conflict between a federally mandated gun regulation and any state law, even if you are the all mighty Texas, then expect it to climb to the Supreme Court in deciding which one is lawful and which one isn't. And regardless of the choice, the state and federal government would have to defer to the decision of the courts. Just because you don't like the results that is democratically elected system you are apart of and partake in doesn't mean you get to take your ball and go home. Any form of secession in the majority of countries, including ours, has resulted in violence and civil war, same thing if it were to happen today. It didn't work out so well in 1861, something tells me it would fair no better today.

Excellent comments by all. The only thing I agree with Dan on is that in a combat type situation, we dont know how we will react. I was at the range shooting my AR one day and met a retired police officer. He said he was on a few "shoot-outs" . He said he never giot used to it and the adrenilin does flow. However, to use that as a reason not to own firearms and rely on the Police is crazy. The fact that we have these weapons is a major deterent. If the attacker sees your weapon and flees, you have won. Even if you shoot and miss, the attacker may flee. I am from South Dakota and there is little crime because people have a lot of firearms. There are NO home invasions like in Florida. The weapons are a deteren to criminals and the govt and they are serving their purpose. I hope I dont ever have to use my weapons but I will own them and I will not register them. The weapons essentially guarantee our freedom.

I was simply commenting about the appropriate timing of this bill. Crime gets worse in a depression. At the same time there are less police on the streets. It is true that unless you are properly trained in the operation of a tool, you will be ineffective using that tool. Dan falsely assumes that the police have a monopoly on firearms training. It is one's personal responsibly to learn how to properly use a firearm.
You do not need a permit to have a gun in your home because you are not carrying a gun in public. Just like you do not need a license to drive a truck on the family farm.

The military has automatic weapons so obviously they are useful for some reason. Luckily, in the USA civilians have not had to defend themselves against their gov't military or foreign invasion, but imagine you lived in Darfur, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Would you argue that these civilians have no right to own AK47s to defend themselves? Your right to self defense should not depend on your geography.

You gotta love it when people offer up weak arguments as alternatives to what they deem to be weak arguments. And the dependent mentality that some of these folks possess is striking.

Case in point? Dan.

You seem to be of the opinion, Dan, that no one can possibly know how to properly use a firearm unless they're officially trained by an official government agency of some kind. Or at least by some private organization accredited by the government. That sort of argument is not only weak, it's stupid. And dangerous t'boot.

Dan E,

Your argument has some false assumptions, the biggest being that police are somehow specially trained liked the special forces. Not too long ago I had considered a career in law enforcement. I went through the academy and passed my state certification exam. I got an offer I couldn't refuse to work in the I.T. industry and that was that. I never forgot what I had learned in the academy and I thought I'd share some wisdom with you and the others reading this thread. First of all, the police go through the same stress you do when encountering a dangerous situation. I was told by experienced officers that you never get used to being in danger, and that they had seen rookies and experienced officers alike make mistakes and panic. One of my instructors even saw a fellow officer empty half his magazine into the floor, before he even got his gun pointed down range, because of the panic to get a shot off at an armed suspect before he got shot first. The firearms training I got wasn't much better than I can get at some of the ranges around where I am. Some of the ranges even offer better training than what I got at the academy. You don't need a concealed carry permit for your home: you need it for everywhere else. You think the police will save you? Another fact I learned from the academy: most confrontations involving a firearm are over in 2 minutes. You are the first responder when your life is threatened, not the police. You are either prepared, including mentally, to defend yourself, or you are not. If you are sure that you can find a safe place to hide until the police arrive, every time, then be my guest. As for assault weapons, that goes back to founding fathers idea that the people would always be a check against government tyranny. It has little to do with hunting, sporting, or even protecting my house. It has to do with protecting our liberties and standing against government oppression. Never forget that the police, as well as your government, is made up of people, not infallible gods. They can, and often do, abuse their authority, especially if you show you are unwilling to handle the responsibilities that go with your freedoms.

I'm glad to see a bill like this introduced. The sovereignty resolution was making a good statement, but a bill like this actually acts upon it. It's a solid push back from the States against an overbearing Federal Government.

I hope to see this bill pass and watch them duke it out in the courts. If the Supreme Court rules against it I think we'll hear a louder response from the States.

Dan this is America and the beauty of her is the personal freedoms we are all allowed under our Constitution. With that freedom also comes a level of personal responsiblity that each of us must be held accountable for. If you feel unsafe with a firearm in your house then by all means do not own one. If you feel unsafe going into anyone's house because they may have a firearm and not know how to use it, then by all means call before you drop by.

Dan E,

I don't like your lack of paranoia there boy. Don't you know with Obama in office they gonna come take all our guns. You need to watch out for the guv'ment.

The problem with Jason's arguments is that people arming themselves to make up for shrinking police budgets is weak. Is he actually arguing that civilians have the training and experience needed to use a firearm under the extreme stress of a possible home robbery and not have high levels of fatal overreactions with lethal consequences. Unless you have been adequately trained, you will be ineffective at best and lethally negligent at worst. Good lord, you do NOT need a concealed carry permit to have gun in your home in most states including Texas. What more freedom does one need, fully assault rifles? Only untrained morons need those to ward off one or two attackers, anything else is certainly better left to well, a trained militia or police force.

Sorry I left out part of my point. If you happen to mention Federal Goverment in the same sentence with Constitution, then you just might be labeled an extremist. Why is it when a different political party is in power people say "things will be different now". The Constitution hasn't changed so why should anything be different? Think about that.

I also love Texas. This administration is now warning that with vets coming home there is a danger of "Right wing extremism". It seems that if you mention Federal goverment in the same sentence, you just might be an extremist. Lets look at that a little closer. Who is more extreme, A central goverment that goes into a state and attacks a group of peaceful people who happen to have a store of firearms and kills men, women and children or someone who has fought and risk their lives for a Constitution that says "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the ownership of guns"?
If Texas had her Sovereignty Rights in under the Tenth Amendment in place at that time, it would have never happened. We have given consent through our silence but we will be silent no more. If our freedoms are a chicken house then we have put a very mean dog to guard those valuable chickens. Now the dog is taking too many chickens for itself and will not even allow us near the coop.

Just FYI for the doubters.

Texas seceding will hurt the remainder of the united States (lower case on united intentional) far more than it will hurt Texas.

1. Texas' power grid is independent of the rest of the country. In fact Texas provides power to other states.

2 Texas' oil and gas reserves can run Texas by itself for better than 100 years.

3. Almost every crop grown in the Midwest is grown in Texas in quantities that Texas couldn't use up if it tried.

4. Only the Interstate highways receive Federal maintenence monies. That would be I-35, I-45, I-20, I-30, and I-10. Other than those roads, all roads in the state are maintained under state or county funding. Usually the Farm to Market roads are wider than most State Roads in other area around the country.

There's a few thousand more things I could add regarding things that you use daily that come from Texas in some fashion or other, but that would take too long.

In short, don't be disparaging a place you don't know. That's just plain ignorant bigotry.

The Federal gov't has abused the interstate commerce clause to usurp the power of states and individuals. Texas is simply asserting its authority, and trying to preempt federal gun restrictions.
A few years into this recession as tax revenues decrease, police departments will shrink and crime will increase as people get desperate. Texans will be able to protect themselves easier without all the federal hurdles.

newsucks500.com Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
"Their gonna prove how independent Texas is by clinging to their guns more, and building more of them.

If ignorance is Bliss, Texas must be the happiest state in the union."

So says someone who apparently says "Big Government rescue me! I'm helpless!"

Shoo! No room for that here.

And I'll stop there so Michael doesn't whack me for getting too mean.

Let them be independent. The feds will simply do the same thing they did to Louisiana when they didn't want to raise the drinking age to 21 and "cease and desist" with the federal money for things such as road repair. Hope it works for ya Texas.

Their gonna prove how independent Texas is by clinging to their guns more, and building more of them.

If ignorance is Bliss, Texas must be the happiest state in the union.

Welcome to Texas!...where politics is a contact sport.

I love Texas.

Go Texas!
I might have to move back to my home state if the keep this up.