Texas to outlaw enforcement of Obama's Gun Laws

 

The Great State of Texas

 and it's support of the 2nd Amendment. 

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — 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.

Courts have long upheld the federal government’s right to enact new laws, which generally supersede state law. Asked how legal precedent for the supremacy of federal law would affect enforcement of his bill, Toth said he expects a legal challenge.


Read More: CBS Houston

Can House Stop U.N. Arms Trade Treaty Gun Grab Threatening 2nd Amendment?

 

Second Amendment: A House resolution, as futile as it may be,  represents growing opposition to another administration bow to the U.N.  encroachment on U.S. sovereignty at the expense of its laws and even our  Constitution.

Treaties are ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, and the final  version of the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) may likely be signed by this  president and ratified by this Senate, especially if presented as a "sensible  restriction" on international arms trafficking with no impact on our Second  Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

But some House members are not going to let it happen without a justified  protest.

Before the House left for the Thanksgiving break, Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa.,  unveiled a resolution to make the treaty not binding and let no federal funds  implement it unless the Senate consents and Congress passes implementing  legislation.

The resolution is co-sponsored by 76 other House members, including some  Democrats.

"There is considerable cause for alarm regarding the U.N.'s renewed efforts  to forge an Arms Trade Treaty that could trample the constitutional rights of  Americans and seriously compromise our national security and the security of our  allies, whom we will be less able to arm and less quick to defend due to the  restrictions placed on us by the ATT," Kelly said.

One of their key objections is with the requirement in the July draft of the  treaty — which will be the starting point for final negotiations — for each  member state to keep records on "end users," or gun purchasers, for a minimum of  10 years.

Hence, Americans who purchase an imported firearm may have to be registered  in the country of origin. Ammunition could also be tracked and logged the same  way.

We have argued, as do Kelly and his colleagues, that even if it applied only  to transfers of small arms between nations, would that mean restrictions on our  ability to aid allies such as Israel and Taiwan?

Would we be forbidden from aiding resistance movements around the world  rising up against the very dictators who support this treaty?

Read More: Investors Business Daily