HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

DEB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 5:50 pm
Location: Copperas Cove, Texas

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#46

Post by DEB »

goose wrote:
baldeagle wrote:
RottenApple wrote:
goose wrote:Agreed. You might arrest the first Fed. The second arrest probably won't go real well. I don't see a local LEO pulling a gun on a Fed for enforcing federal law. In the escalation game we would all lose in that fight.

I think that this would simply go the way of the wacky weed laws in CO, WA, etc. State LEOs simply enforce state law. No help rendered to Feds, no harm rendered to Feds.
My one concern with this bill is it being completely struck down. Let's say that a local/state LEO does arrest a Fed. He's booked, etc. Goes to trial. Found guilty & sentenced. Appeals, and it goes to Federal Court. The Federal Court overturns the law (can Feds strike down state laws?). Now we've lost both the (unConstitutional) "arrest the feds" provision AND the "punish our own for helping the feds" provision.

If we've just got to have the "arrest the feds" part, then we should have separate bills to accomplish both goals.
If you're going to go the route of ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, you don't stop just because some court told you to. Once committed, you continue until they get the message.
I'm not saying that you're ideologically wrong but are you asking the local LEOs to essentially engage in the beginnings of a civil war? I honestly have no clue but I bet after the first arrest, Feds start going out in twos, then threes, then fours. Local LEOs, by and large, won't have that luxury. I'd still put my money on it going the way of Mary Jane laws. If this is turning into a secession issue, so be it. Different discussion. I just don't see it going that way.
"Local LEOs, by and large, won't have that luxury". In this I would disagree. All it would take would be for the local LEO to get on the phone and he would have more reinforcements than he could count. Tell law abiding folks that their LEO is having problems with Federal Agents? This would be very different than Waco. I do agree that it could quickly snow ball out of control, but it gets into that different discussion.
Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Teddy Roosevelt"
DEB=Daniel E Bertram
U.S. Army Retired, (Sapper). VFW Life Member.
User avatar

goose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: Katy-ish

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#47

Post by goose »

DEB wrote: "Local LEOs, by and large, won't have that luxury". In this I would disagree. All it would take would be for the local LEO to get on the phone and he would have more reinforcements than he could count. Tell law abiding folks that their LEO is having problems with Federal Agents? This would be very different than Waco. I do agree that it could quickly snow ball out of control, but it gets into that different discussion.
Local LEOs won't have the luxury of going out in pairs or greater numbers day after day. If they did, we'd already be demanding that they did. Yes, I realize this does happen but not in great numbers. That was my point. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw two officers in one squad car here in the West Houston area. They will have their radios but in this example the Feds will already have the numbers advantage without a radio. What is the LEO going to do when the Feds, in multiples, simply get back in their car and drive away? What will the reinforcements do when they arrive? So now we have ten guys and gals all drawn down on each other in an arguably lawful situation? The getting out of control is the discussion. If local LEOs arrest Feds for enforcing federal laws (even bad ones) it will immediately, relatively speaking, be out of control.

Which is why I originally said, this cannot in any scenario I can logically draw up go any other way than the path already laid out by state marijuana laws. Local LEOs don't interfere, local LEOs don't help.
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε
User avatar

goose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: Katy-ish

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#48

Post by goose »

goose wrote:
DEB wrote: "Local LEOs, by and large, won't have that luxury". In this I would disagree. All it would take would be for the local LEO to get on the phone and he would have more reinforcements than he could count. Tell law abiding folks that their LEO is having problems with Federal Agents? This would be very different than Waco. I do agree that it could quickly snow ball out of control, but it gets into that different discussion.
Local LEOs won't have the luxury of going out in pairs or greater numbers day after day. If they did, we'd already be demanding that they did. Yes, I realize this does happen but not in great numbers. That was my point. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw two officers in one squad car here in the West Houston area. They will have their radios but in this example the Feds will already have the numbers advantage without a radio. What is the LEO going to do when the Feds, in multiples, simply get back in their car and drive away? What will the reinforcements do when they arrive? So now we have ten guys and gals all drawn down on each other in an arguably lawful situation? The getting out of control is the discussion. If local LEOs arrest Feds for enforcing federal laws (even bad ones) it will immediately, relatively speaking, be out of control.

Which is why I originally said, this cannot in any scenario I can logically draw up go any other way than the path already laid out by state marijuana laws. Local LEOs don't interfere, local LEOs don't help.
Maybe I've missed it but I'd love to hear from the many LEOs on the board. Hating the Feds or not, would they look forward to or even envision drawing down on a federal agent enforcing federal laws?
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε

texanjoker

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#49

Post by texanjoker »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this :mrgreen: .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.
Some of this seems a bit overboard. Feds come by the station, use a phone, and now whoever let them in the building is at risk of prosecution?
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#50

Post by jmra »

texanjoker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this :mrgreen: .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.
Some of this seems a bit overboard. Feds come by the station, use a phone, and now whoever let them in the building is at risk of prosecution?
Only if they had knowledge that the agent was involved in activity prohibited by the bill. I have no problem with that.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#51

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

texanjoker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this :mrgreen: .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.
Some of this seems a bit overboard. Feds come by the station, use a phone, and now whoever let them in the building is at risk of prosecution?
It's limited to specific federal laws, regulations and executive orders, so the LEO would have to know (or should have known) of the federal provision the federal agent wanted to enforce. Of course, it would be a very good idea for the LEO to ask what the fed wanted.

Chas.

texanjoker

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#52

Post by texanjoker »

jmra wrote:
texanjoker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this :mrgreen: .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.
Some of this seems a bit overboard. Feds come by the station, use a phone, and now whoever let them in the building is at risk of prosecution?
Only if they had knowledge that the agent was involved in activity prohibited by the bill. I have no problem with that.
I'm sure you don't. However nobody will have to worry about that. IF they ever started enforcing something like this, the FEDS simply won't tell locals what they are doing. They already keep quiet on all sorts of stuff they do. This would be no different.
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#53

Post by jmra »

texanjoker wrote:
jmra wrote:
texanjoker wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this :mrgreen: .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.
Some of this seems a bit overboard. Feds come by the station, use a phone, and now whoever let them in the building is at risk of prosecution?
Only if they had knowledge that the agent was involved in activity prohibited by the bill. I have no problem with that.
I'm sure you don't. However nobody will have to worry about that. IF they ever started enforcing something like this, the FEDS simply won't tell locals what they are doing. They already keep quiet on all sorts of stuff they do. This would be no different.
That's the whole point. The Feds don't and never will have the man power to pull off any significant move without the support of local law enforcement. This bill gives local law enforcement an easy out.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

texanjoker

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#54

Post by texanjoker »

Personally, I don't like the idea making TX peace officers potential criminals for some acts that are not going to accomplish anything. In many places LE's already do not help the feds. Take immigration issues. We had a clear policy when I still worked in CA that we DID NOT join in Border Patrol pursuits. BP would violate all the county wide protocols so the policy came out. They would get on the radio saying they were "following" a load car. Then we would watch them chase the load car with lights and sirens the wrong way at high speeds on the freeway :nono: . It was simple, policy said don't do it so we didn't. We didn't need a law telling us not to.

While they have the right idea to stop the feds who want to violate our 2nd amendment RIGHTs, I personally see flaws. I see a lot of what if's on this forum about a chl holder and certain actions like school shootings, traffic stops, ect. Let's turn that around. What if a call for code 3 cover or officer needs assistance comes over the radio, with a federal agent down. Are we going to sit back and find out if they were doing something in this act that makes us criminals or respond as normal? I can say sitting back and not helping a downed officer is not going to fly among the street level officers.

I"d rather see the state passing a law that would state something like this: Texas state residents, who may legally own firearms pursuant to Texas law "May" own, possess, purchases, sale all the weapons that obama and the lib's want to ban. In addition they are not required to register their weapons and may possess magazines of any number, ect." While the Feds may still try to do something, this would set up a good challenge in court. Take WA/CO with their now legal marijuana. The Feds namely Nobama said they won't go in and enforce that. Turn around to the gun issue. What laws will they enforce? Guns are protected by the 2nd amendment and not drugs.
User avatar

filmtex
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:53 pm
Location: Southwest of Austin generally, Southeast of Dallas occasionally, Israel annually.

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#55

Post by filmtex »

Still digesting all that you have said texasjoker.
Last edited by filmtex on Thu Jan 24, 2013 10:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Come and take it."

I, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

#56

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

texanjoker wrote:What if a call for code 3 cover or officer needs assistance comes over the radio, with a federal agent down. Are we going to sit back and find out if they were doing something in this act that makes us criminals or respond as normal? I can say sitting back and not helping a downed officer is not going to fly among the street level officers.
Unless things have changed since I was a street COP, the feds won't have radio contact with the local PD or SO. This means they'll be calling 911 and it will be handled as any other shots fired call. If, and only if, there's still an ongoing battle or barricaded suspect (again, a bit absurd) when the responding officer arrives, then the officer can ask why the feds are there. If their purpose violates the state statute, then the officer better leave or face prosecution. I don't care if they like it or not, it would be the law. (How many times have you said precisely that to a citizen?) Officers don't like being prosecuted or sued under §1983, but they have to obey the law. The Galveston officer who was fired yesterday for manhandling a grandmother didn't like getting fired, but he violated department policy and probably committed an assault.
texanjoker wrote:I"d rather see the state passing a law that would state something like this: Texas state residents, who may legally own firearms pursuant to Texas law "May" own, possess, purchases, sale all the weapons that obama and the lib's want to ban. In addition they are not required to register their weapons and may possess magazines of any number, ect." While the Feds may still try to do something, this would set up a good challenge in court. Take WA/CO with their now legal marijuana. The Feds namely Nobama said they won't go in and enforce that. Turn around to the gun issue. What laws will they enforce? Guns are protected by the 2nd amendment and not drugs.
That is unconstitutional and unenforceable. It does absolutely nothing, other than making a statement. It most certainly does not set up a "good challenge in court."

I strongly suspect that most Texas COPS will love to see HB553 pass because it gives them a great reason to tell the feds they can't help enforce certain laws, regulations and executive orders. Those that don't can quit and do something else.

Chas.
Post Reply

Return to “2013 Texas Legislative Session”