2nd Amendment Preservation Act, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Sanctuary State, SB378, Texas & Missouri SB 367

jff_stvns

Sergeant of the Hide
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 14, 2008
405
647
AUSTIN, Texas (March 5, 2019) – A bill filed in the Texas Senate would set the foundation to nullify federal gun control in practice and effect.
Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) filed Senate Bill 378 (SB378) on January 17. The bill would prohibit any state government agency, personnel or public funds from enforcing any federal gun control regulation or law “if the federal statute, order, rule, or regulation or international law imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity, size, or configuration limitation, that does not exist under the laws of this state.”
State agencies and local governments would not be allowed to receive state grant money if they adopt any regulation that requires enforcement of federal gun control laws that do not mirror in state law. A person in the affected jurisdiction would be permitted to file a lawsuit with the state attorney general.
There is also a provision that stipulates the attorney general must defend any state agency or local government sued by the feds for not enforcing federal gun laws.
Last week, the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee held a hearing on a similar bill, House Bill 238.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”
Boldin also noted how the same strategy is being used effectively elsewhere.
“No one – and I mean no one – is arguing that immigration sanctuary cities aren’t having an effect on federal immigration law. This bill in Texas uses the same approach of withdrawing resources and enforcement support, but it takes on federal gun control,” he said. “More conservative states should do the exact same thing.”
SB378 represents a strategic, yet powerful step forward. If it passes into law, gun rights activists should then direct their strategy and resources towards repealing state restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Every repeal would then include an immediate ban on resources for enforcement of any similar federal law or regulation.
NECESSARY
Some gun rights supporters argue that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Senate and an NRA-backed president.
“We’ve already heard talk of an unconstitutional bump stock ban, but even if we don’t get any new gun control in the next couple of years, there’s still a lot of unconstitutional federal gun control measures on the books today,” Boldin said. “Whether it’s the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968, plus many others – the states can build a constitutional wall that protects them from the unconstitutional ATF.”
LEGAL BASIS
SB378 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
 

Attachments

  • 20190306_000152 (2).jpg
    20190306_000152 (2).jpg
    174.8 KB · Views: 161
Last edited:
Shit. I don't like Texas but if that passes it may be the only true sanctuary --until they cut off federal funds, which I'm sure they'll do. Every 4-8 years I'm guessing, depending.
 
Shit. I don't like Texas but if that passes it may be the only true sanctuary --until they cut off federal funds, which I'm sure they'll do. Every 4-8 years I'm guessing, depending.

States need to figure out they dont need federal money. Use the sales and local tax's wisely, (implamation of a flat sales tax that includes everyone within the state, personal, corp, etc) inlcuding the use of toll roads, and most will see problem solved. They can tell the government to keep their federal money. Federal money ALWAYS comes with strings attached.
 
The taxes and influx of libtard idiots might suck here, but damn you have to love things at a State lawmaking level here. Any measure helps and is welcomed. On top of this, Greg Abbott really is one of the best Governors of all time I feel. I would honestly love to see him have an "extended stay" in the White House some day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crang
I already have a license that allows this...don't matter where I live

View attachment 7037943

The Second Amendment, and all Amendments in the Bill of Rights, prohibits certain actions of the federal government. Nothing in the BOR grants anything. All of those rights were and remain God given.

The concept that certain rights were granted in the Bill if Rights is wrong and foolish. Wrong because that’s not what happened. Foolish because it gives our nation full of Constititional illiterates the notion that repealing the Second Amemdment has anything at all to do with my right to be armed.

It doesn’t and it won’t. So stop feeding the trolls by having a limited, and wrong, understanding of the BOR and the Constitution.

The Constitution grants certain enumerated powers to the Federal Government. The BOR restricts those powers in some specific and some general cases.

This isn’t hard.
 
Last edited:
The Second Amendment, and all Amendments in the Bill of Rights, prohibits certain actions of the federal government. Nothing in the BOR grants anything. All of those rights were and remain God given.

The concept that certain rights were granted in the Bill if Rights is wrong and foolish. Wrong because that’s not what happened. Foolish because it gives our nation full of Constititional illiterates the notion that repealing the Second Amemdment has anything at all do do with my right to be armed.

It doesn’t and it won’t. So stop feeding the trolls by having a limited, and wrong, understanding of the BOR and the Constitution.

The Constitution grants certain enumerated powers to the Federal Government. The BOR restricts those power in some specific and some general cases.

This isn’t hard.

I understand the Constitution and the BOR quite well. Making a symbolic point so lighten the fuck up genius
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mwalex
Good post dw. Madison was originally against even making a BOR. He (correctly) assumed it would eventually be seen as our list of rights and take away from the real view that our rights are infinite and only the governments are finite. The founding documents of this country dont give us our rights, they only limit the governments. The BOR was just for the ones big enough they felt it worth noting. In fact he felt the states could insure these rights better than the Feds and changed his mind more for political reasons later on. Its incredibly good to see the state of Texas taking on this role.
 
  • Like
Reactions: charbroiled
I fully agree with this but in reality if your not in a state that backs you up and you surrounded by the task force and you are standing your ground you may be going out toes up !

The reality is that it really don't matter. If you live your life in a non-conspicuous manner, there is nothing or little to fear. The Feds know little about what any given person owns despite them trying to convince you otherwise. If it ever came down to a confiscation by armed officials, then it isn't a world I want to be a part of anyways. I lived longer than my parents so no biggie. However, I don't think that day will ever come at least in my lifetime.
 
The Second Amendment, and all Amendments in the Bill of Rights, prohibits certain actions of the federal government. Nothing in the BOR grants anything. All of those rights were and remain God given.

The concept that certain rights were granted in the Bill if Rights is wrong and foolish. Wrong because that’s not what happened. Foolish because it gives our nation full of Constititional illiterates the notion that repealing the Second Amemdment has anything at all do do with my right to be armed.

It doesn’t and it won’t. So stop feeding the trolls by having a limited, and wrong, understanding of the BOR and the Constitution.

The Constitution grants certain enumerated powers to the Federal Government. The BOR restricts those power in some specific and some general cases.

This isn’t hard.


Exactly why Obama hates the Constitution......"a document of negative rights" if you are a tyrant.





 
AUSTIN, Texas (March 5, 2019) – A bill filed in the Texas Senate would set the foundation to nullify federal gun control in practice and effect.
Sen. Bob Hall (R-Edgewood) filed Senate Bill 378 (SB378) on January 17. The bill would prohibit any state government agency, personnel or public funds from enforcing any federal gun control regulation or law “if the federal statute, order, rule, or regulation or international law imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity, size, or configuration limitation, that does not exist under the laws of this state.”
State agencies and local governments would not be allowed to receive state grant money if they adopt any regulation that requires enforcement of federal gun control laws that do not mirror in state law. A person in the affected jurisdiction would be permitted to file a lawsuit with the state attorney general.
There is also a provision that stipulates the attorney general must defend any state agency or local government sued by the feds for not enforcing federal gun laws.
Last week, the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee held a hearing on a similar bill, House Bill 238.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”
Boldin also noted how the same strategy is being used effectively elsewhere.
“No one – and I mean no one – is arguing that immigration sanctuary cities aren’t having an effect on federal immigration law. This bill in Texas uses the same approach of withdrawing resources and enforcement support, but it takes on federal gun control,” he said. “More conservative states should do the exact same thing.”
SB378 represents a strategic, yet powerful step forward. If it passes into law, gun rights activists should then direct their strategy and resources towards repealing state restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Every repeal would then include an immediate ban on resources for enforcement of any similar federal law or regulation.
NECESSARY
Some gun rights supporters argue that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Senate and an NRA-backed president.
“We’ve already heard talk of an unconstitutional bump stock ban, but even if we don’t get any new gun control in the next couple of years, there’s still a lot of unconstitutional federal gun control measures on the books today,” Boldin said. “Whether it’s the National Firearms Act of 1934 or the Gun Control Act of 1968, plus many others – the states can build a constitutional wall that protects them from the unconstitutional ATF.”
LEGAL BASIS
SB378 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
Nice approach with legal history shouldn't be any different than states that legalized weed which still conflicts on a federal level. I guess it boils down to states rights and doesn't conflict with the commerce clause(s) hopefully Texas has preemption law to prevent having local governments overriding state laws mostly pertaining to gun laws? Super good post! They get that done Maybe more states will follow.
 
Texas house committee Homeland security & public safety rep contacts for SB 378

Poncho Nevarez Dis 74 512-463-0566

Dennis Paul Dis 129 512-463-0734

Dewayne Burns Dis 58 512-463-0538

Gina Calanni Dis 132 512-463-0528

Travis Clardy Dis 11 512-463-8792

Vikki Goodwin Dis 47 512-463-0652

Celia Israel Dis 50 512-463-0821

Mike Lang Dis 60 512-463-0656

Tony Tinderholt Dis 94 512-463-0624

This bill was introduced back in 2013 and died somewhere, the way things are escalating now I

don't think it will survive another 3 to 4 years to get it up for vote again if it fails, the window is

now to get it threw. Tell everyone you know to call and and kindly ask the

committee to support it. I know it's short notice but I think they are going to look at it again

mon 11th. Get after it Texas and I wish you the best.
 
Last edited:
Jesus....

I got to scrolling through search results on that site...

There's a shitload of anti-gun bullshit in the pipeline. Raising instructor fees to fund mental health "studies" in schools in populations > 2 mil but less than 3.3 mil, making carrying a class A misdemeanor if BAC > 0.08%, bump stock ban on possession, mfg, transport, or sale, , background checks at gunshows for any sale, red flag bullshit, etc....

Fuckin' hell...
 
Mar 14 at 2:27 PM



Nullification Movement News for Mar. 14, 2019
Missouri Committee Passes Bill to Ban “Material Support or Resources” for Warrantless Federal Surveillance
A Missouri House committee unanimously passed a bill that would ban “material support or resources” for warrantless federal surveillance programs. This is an essential step every state needs to take at a time when the federal government seems unlikely to ever end unconstitutional spying on its own.
Rep. Ron Hicks (R-Dardenne Praire) filed House Bill 296 (HB296) on Dec. 18 for introduction in the 2019 legislative session. The proposed law would prohibit the state and its agencies, political subdivisions, special districts, or employees from assisting, participating with, or providing material support or resources to a federal agency to enable it to collect or facilitate in the collection or use of a person’s electronic data or metadata unless one of three circumstances apply.
FULL REPORT HERE
See Also: Utah Committee Passes Bill to Bar Police from Forcing a Person to Use Biometric Data to Open an Electronic Device
HB296
Feds Ramp up Facial Recognition as a “Convenience” at Airports
Facial Recognition surveillance is being ramped up at airports by CBP and TSA as a “convenience." And they plan to expand far beyond where things are now.

On this episode of Good Morning Liberty, @michaelboldin says that searching your face, and seizing a digital copy of it is a cut and dry 4th Amendment violation.
Watch/Listen HERE
GML
To the Governor: West Virginia Passes Bill to Start Treating Gold and Silver as Money
Last month, the full Senate passed the bill by a vote of 33-0. Last week, the House concurred with a 90-9 vote, sending the bill to Gov. Jim Justice’s desk.
Passage into law would eliminate a significant barrier to using gold and silver in everyday transactions, a foundational step for people to undermine the Federal Reserve’s monopoly on money.
“West Virginia has taken a huge step forward with the passage of SB 502. Thanks to the efforts of Senator Blair and other groups, there are now fewer obstacles in the way of West Virginia citizens to protect themselves from the inflationary practices of the Federal Reserve,” said Jp Cortez, Policy Director of the Sound Money Defense League.
FULL REPORT HERE
SB502
Kentucky Governor Signs “Constitutional Carry” Bill into Law
Gov. Matt Bevin has signed a bill into law making it legal for state residents to carry firearms concealed without a license and also fostering an environment more hostile to federal gun control.

While permitless carry bills do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of permitless conceal carry laws in states subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.
FULL REPORT HERE
S150
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
Over the last 3 years, we've seen more nullification bills introduced - and PASSED - than any time in our history.

Absolutely nothing, helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members.

Thank you for putting your financial faith behind our work here at the Tenth Amendment Center.

We are extremely grateful for your support!

--Michael Boldin, TAC
 
And my question is how come Texas is not voting these folks out of office ? All I hear is all the BS mantra on how California keeps voting these liberals in place so we can drown in are own shit !!!
So what is Texas excuse ?
 
Thats a dam shame, sad times in America. Time to hold these folks accountable. I am pretty sure all of us thought we would not see what is going on right now. The question is how to stop it ? Im pretty sure its the 10 amendment but the state has to be on the same page with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmyJerry
We Need More of This!
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Mar 8, 2019|Categories: Environment, State Bills|
We Need More of This!

Wyoming just stuck a huge middle finger up at the federal government.
More and more, we’re seeing states simply ignore the feds. As just one example, we now have 33 states with legal medical marijuana and 10 states allowing adult use of cannabis despite continuing federal prohibition. But Wyoming took things to another level last month when Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill into law that sets the stage to authorize a grizzly bear hunt despite a federal court ruling prohibiting it.
In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service delisted grizzly bears as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. In order to manage the growing bear population, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission scheduled a limited grizzly bear hunt for August 2018. But U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen’s issued a ruling that restored the species’ “threatened” status under the Endangered Species Act, thereby nixing the hunt.
Sen. Wyatt Agar (R-Weiser) sponsored Senate Bill 93. Isn’t that a great name for a guy thumbing his nose at the feds?
Anyway, under the new law, the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission “may conduct a grizzly bear hunt and shall issue licenses … which shall provide for the dates, times and locations of the hunts” if “the game and fish commission determines under the laws of the state of Wyoming that a grizzly bear hunt would be beneficial for managing Wyoming’s wildlife and for protecting Wyoming workers and other citizens and tourists of the state.”
This sets the stage for the state to nullify the federal judge’s ruling. A Wyoming newspaper said it would allow the state to move ahead with an “illegal” hunt.
You want to know what’s illegal?
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that’s what.
If we were following the law of the land – the Constitution – the agency wouldn’t exist.
Here’s a simple, indisputable fact: The federal government doesn’t have the constitutional authority to regulate wildlife. And as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #78, “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid.”
So, Wyoming has every right – and I would say even a responsibility – to tell this federal judge to pound sand. As James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798:
“In case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
Now, whether Wyoming will follow through and authorize the hunt remains to be seen. But the foundation is set and the state Game and Fish Commission absolutely should. If U.S. District Court Judge Dana Christensen doesn’t like it, let him roll his ass out of the courtroom and do something about it.
Good job Wyoming! We need a lot more of this!
Tags: grizzly bear, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming


952a0e53997dc52a97846c7f12bc09ab
 
Was thinking about Nevada but not anymore !
Nevada: Omnibus Anti-Gun Bill Introduced, Legislator Bill Introduction Deadline Extended

SUPPORT NRA-ILA
Today, Assembly Bill 291 was introduced by Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui (D-41). This omnibus anti-gun legislation is a threat to both gun owners residing in Nevada and those who are visiting.
Most notably, this legislation:
  • Repeals Firearms Preemption Laws: State preemption prevents local governments from enacting their own gun control ordinances and creating a confusing patchwork of laws. Without preemption, a person could face various laws and regulations when traveling throughout the State.
  • Criminalizes Firearm Modifications: Like SB 261, introduced last week, this legislation has language even more broad and overreaching than existing federal regulations and could potentially criminalize firearm modifications such as competition triggers or ergonomic changes that are commonly done by law-abiding gun owners to make their firearms more suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, or even overcoming disability.
  • Expands the ability for localities to create “gun-free zones:” These arbitrary boundaries only disarm law-abiding citizens and leave them defenseless against the criminals who ignore such restrictions.
Today was the scheduled bill introduction deadline for legislators; however, SCR 4 was passed today to extend the deadline to March 29th. This extension was a result of various resignations by members of the legislature.
 
Withholding federal funds from Texas? They take more than they give back.
Texas needs little of anything from the feds if we keep our own money.

The feds need Texas more than we need them.

I say ad the pot bill to the 2A protection bill and even our own snowflakes will sign it.
I wont be smoking any pot and the libs won't shoot guns, everybody happy except feds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W54/XM-388
House being built in Belton right now, moving there in about June. Sorry can't bring any firearms to the party as all are at the bottom of the Columbia river.
oh, and fuck the wannabe wetback Irishman horseface puke.
 
And my question is how come Texas is not voting these folks out of office ? All I hear is all the BS mantra on how California keeps voting these liberals in place so we can drown in are own shit !!!
So what is Texas excuse ?

In Texas' defense, maybe we aren't voting these people in anymore. It was found in a court of law that the Democrats "fixed" their Primary. Literally the party that claims to be "democratic" was clearly *not*. They rigged the elections for the primary and shoved a candidate up the Democrats asses that they didn't vote for - lots of Democrats I know voted for Trump or third party because they were so disgusted that the Democrats rigged their Primary.

If the Primary can be rigged, why not State and Local elections?

I'm just saying what I have been saying for about 20 years now. We are not gonna vote our Way out of this mess. There are forces at work to undermine the Constitution and hand America's vast wealth and resources over the The Global Oligarchy - which has unlimited funds. They own your Senator, your Congressman, and have inside resources bought and paid for that you cannot even comprehend. Vote how ya want, it doesn't matter. It only matter who counts the votes and in many cases that can be fixed with software.

We now have Politicians shoving unlawful/unconstitutional laws up our asses and when our Sheriffs and LEO start forming Sanctuary States and refusing to prosecute and arrest on illegal laws *they* are being threatened with fines and jail!!

Our Government is dividing itself into criminals and people who follow the Constitution are being criminalized. We voted for this? Bullshit....something is gone terribly awry. Amewrica is dividing itself into North and South again only this time the secessionists/rebels live right next door. Instead of being divided geographically we are divided like different colored marbles all in the same jar. We can;t segregate ourselves from people we hate anymore. They live in our own houses and work at our place of employment. This is gonna get ugly.

VooDoo
 
We must, first and foremost, require that all members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches abide by their oaths "to support and defend" our Constitution — under penalty of law.

I like that VooDoo.