Texas lawmaker wants to make federal weapons ban illegal in texas

[regulator 0]

THE WOODLANDS -- A Republican lawmaker from The Woodlands says he's trying to make sure the federal government doesn't take away our gun rights.
Don't mess with Texans or their guns. That’s how state Rep. Steve Toth (R-Woodlands) sees it.
Toth wants to make any new federal weapons ban illegal in the state of Texas.
“This is a hardened state. This isn't a good place for a criminal to show up and start shooting,” said Rep. Toth.
So, he’s proposing legislation that would make any federal law banning semiautomatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable in the Lone Star State.
“We want to make sure this legislation protects the Second Amendment gun rights and the Tenth Amendment which is state sovereignty rights of Texans
This controversial idea comes on the heels of another state lawmaker, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, and his views about gun training for Texas teachers.
“In case we've got school personnel with a concealed handgun permit that are in that school and there's an active shooter, we don't want the children harmed we don't want the teacher harmed,” said Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst.
Under his plan, the state would foot the bill for gun training. The decision to allow for concealed weapons on campus would be made district by district.
“You're not turning the schools into an armed camp with a lot of police officers,” said Dewhurst. “At the same time, you're sending a message if you publicize it to bad people, stay away from our children.”
But the lieutenant governor's idea isn't exactly sitting well with some parents.
“I don't believe in guns, so I believe in ban gun period,” said parent Tina Swangphol.
“Maybe there could be another way,” said parent Patricia Pittman. “I know they need to be trained, but it shouldn't come out of taxpayer money.”
The debate over teachers and guns will no doubt be a hot topic in Austin, but Rep. Toth believes his proposed Firearm Protection Act will easily pass.
Under his plan, anyone trying to enforce a federal gun ban could be charged with a felony in Texas.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Woodlands-lawmaker-wants-federal-weapons-ban-illegal-in-Texas--186577481.html

[regulator 0]

If something like this is honestly pulled off then the motto "Don't Mess with Texas" will be never a more true statement.

[masterrig 1]

I'm glad to see this! Wyoming, as has been mentioned in these forums, has a proposal that something similar could work here in Texas. In the part of Texas where I live, we get a lot of illegals and dope runners, many of whom are armed. Also, a lot of crooks and other assorted bad guys like to hide-out in this country. Just banning all guns won't work out here. A 911 call takes roughly 45 minutes for a response. Too much can happen in that time frame. Those are just a couple reasons I have a CHL.


Chuck

[cvfd1399 0]

I always thought federal laws and regulations trumped the states.

[Bertt 0]

Quote

“This is a hardened state. This isn't a good place for a criminal to show up and start shooting,” said Rep. Toth.

This would be more believable if not for the fact that Texas has more violent crimes per 100,000 population than the national average (and more even than Alabama), the Tower sniper, the Luby's massacre, and that whole Kennedy assassination thing. Anyway, I wish him luck telling the Feds they can't enforce a law in his state.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[regulator 0]

The last mass shooting was initiated by a military officer. Texas is also the largest state [conus] with 25 million people. With all those people there will always nutjob inhabitants just waiting for their opportunity to impact soceity in bad ways. Im not going to stand on the sidelines with my pants down and let someone affect my way of life.

[Andy9o8 2]

See Wyoming thread. Same issues, same discussion.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I always thought federal laws and regulations trumped the states.

They do.

the best legal action for a state to take would be to sue the fed govt in federal court seeking to declare a specific federal statute, regulation or executive order unconstitutional.

There will undoubtedly be more states' legislators looking to jump on this bandwagon. This tactic will largely fail, because legally it puts the cart before the horse. They really can't do this preepmptively; they must wait for specific federal action first, then respond by challenging its constitutionality.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Yea Louisiana just passed that here. Any changes to our gun laws have to go to court to ensure they are legal.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[lawrocket 3]

It's a very liberal thing - to make some political statement that has zero chance of success due to the Supremacy Clause.

A statement like this. Same tactics, different points. All unifying to create a political universe of bs.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

I always thought federal laws and regulations trumped the states.

They do.

the best legal action for a state to take would be to sue the fed govt in federal court seeking to declare a specific federal statute, regulation or executive order unconstitutional.

There will undoubtedly be more states' legislators looking to jump on this bandwagon. This tactic will largely fail, because legally it puts the cart before the horse. They really can't do this preepmptively; they must wait for specific federal action first, then respond by challenging its constitutionality.

I'm seeing this as a way to attempt tp influence the feds crafting of new laws that are sure to come. State governments making sure the feds know they are serious about this subject. The other benefit in gun friendly states is the ability to say to voters "we did everything we could to fight the feds".

[Andy9o8 2]

IOW, an utter waste of state taxpayers' money, all for the public relations. Trust me, everyone, including the fed govt, knows quite well which way each state leans on gun politics and policy.

And for this, fewer public school books will be bought & fewer state hwys will be repaired. Brilliant.

True public fiscal conservatism is responsible stewardship of the public's money, not this kind of dog & pony show.

[Pteropuss 0]

Quote

Quote

“This is a hardened state. This isn't a good place for a criminal to show up and start shooting,” said Rep. Toth.

This would be more believable if not for the fact that Texas has more violent crimes per 100,000 population than the national average (and more even than Alabama), the Tower sniper, the Luby's massacre, and that whole Kennedy assassination thing. Anyway, I wish him luck telling the Feds they can't enforce a law in his state.

Texas also has five of the 20 most populous cities in America, and most violent crime occurs in big cities. Despite that, the Texas violent crime rate is 408 per 100,000, versus 386 for the national average. That's only about 6% higher than the average. Now, compare that to Chicago with their tough gun laws - 650! That's 68% above the national average!

Reference: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

The Tower sniper and Kennedy assassination were in 1963, Luby's was 1991, all before Texas had passed a concealed handgun law. Kennedy wasn't a mass shooting. You had to go back 50 years to find just two examples!

[Bertt 0]

A hundred thousand people is about the same number of people in Texas as anywhere else. My main point here is that the well-meaning legislator will spend a lot of effort keeping his state below average.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[masterrig 1]

If, you look closely, the majority of those killings were gang/drug running related.


Chuck

[AndyBoyd 0]

Not trying to pick a fight, an honest question: would it be OK with you if states like Colorado that are legalizing marijuana passed laws stating that anyone trying to enforce federal drug laws in those states could be charged with felonies?

[Pteropuss 0]

Quote

A hundred thousand people is about the same number of people in Texas as anywhere else.

When it comes to crime rates, 100,000 people in Dallas is not the same as 100,000 people in rural Iowa.

And Texas has Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin, as 5 of the 20 biggest cities in America. If Iowa had five cities that big, their crime rates would be bad too.

And besides, where crime rates are bad is where the good guys need guns for self defense the most.

[Pteropuss 0]

Quote

Not trying to pick a fight, an honest question: would it be OK with you if states like Colorado that are legalizing marijuana passed laws stating that anyone trying to enforce federal drug laws in those states could be charged with felonies?

And isn't it interesting that states are rebelling against federal gun laws, and also rebelling against federal marijuana laws? You would think the Feds would realize that they're pushing too far.

[chutem 0]

Quote

IOW, an utter waste of state taxpayers' money, all for the public relations. Trust me, everyone, including the fed govt, knows quite well which way each state leans on gun politics and policy.

And for this, fewer public school books will be bought & fewer state hwys will be repaired. Brilliant.

True public fiscal conservatism is responsible stewardship of the public's money, not this kind of dog & pony show.

I'm well aware that which way states lean on gun control is known by the feds. I'm not so sure they undestand how strongly some states feel about this. I'm curious to see how far some states will go to defend what they see as their constitutional rights.

I do agree that it will make little to no difference.

[popsjumper 2]

Yet at the national level, of the 35 Texas representatives in the House, there were only 2 Nay votes and 2 that did not vote on the NDAA bill. 31 0f the 35 voted FOR the NDAA.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[GoHuskers 0]

Quote

You would think the Feds would realize that they're pushing too far.

You are making the bold assumption that the feds have any collective effort to accomplish or assess anything. The only thing that federal elected and appointed officials and their thousands and thousands of employees have every seen to exercise a collective effort on is the proliferation of the federal government in size and scope. I would bet the majority of that sentiment is created by everyone else complaining about the gaps in the organization. 1 more agency and 1 more employee will solve the problem.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

And besides, where crime rates are bad is where the good guys need guns for self defense the most.

Nonsense!

I've worked in Chicago (south side) for 35 years, where homicide rates are bad, yet I've not felt the need for a gun for self defense once in all that time. Being street smart is the way to keep out of trouble.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Pteropuss 0]

Quote

Quote

And besides, where crime rates are bad is where the good guys need guns for self defense the most.

Nonsense!

I've worked in Chicago (south side) for 35 years, where homicide rates are bad, yet I've not felt the need for a gun for self defense once in all that time. Being street smart is the way to keep out of trouble.

Perhaps the Chicago police should offer classes in being street smart. Maybe some of those 500 people murdered there last year could have been saved.

Yeah, that was sarcasm. If only it were so simple...

Just because you don't feel the need for a gun, doesn't mean that everyone else should feel the same as you. And I'm sure that a lot of street smart people have been victims of violent crime. Being street smart isn't some kind of magic Star Trek deflector shield. You work in the relative safety of a university campus. Others aren't so lucky. You get to go home to a safe neighborhood at the end of the day. Others aren't so lucky. You've just been lucky. Most people are. An anti-gun liberal is just someone who hasn't been mugged yet.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And besides, where crime rates are bad is where the good guys need guns for self defense the most.

Nonsense!

I've worked in Chicago (south side) for 35 years, where homicide rates are bad, yet I've not felt the need for a gun for self defense once in all that time. Being street smart is the way to keep out of trouble.

Not everyone is as smart as you think you are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bertt 0]

I'm not really arguing gun law here. I'm arguing statistics. Two points:
1) Rep. Toth didn't say "Except for five cities, Texas is a hardened state ...". He was talking about the whole state.
2) The United States contains 20 of the 20 largest cities in the United States. Even including Detroit, D.C., etc., the violent crime rate in Texas is higher than the U.S. average. I've recently been told that it's about 6% higher.

My point is still that the well-meaning representative would spend his time and his state's money better by doing something positive for his state (like encouraging the local police to frequently drop by schools in their patrol area) than by picking a fight with the Federal government that he probably can't win.

You don't have to outrun the bear.