TexasCHLforum.com

philip964 wrote:https://apnews.com/3497917b75ed4cd18d65 ... tuary-laws

Sessions file lawsuit against CA.

I'm actually rooting for California to win this case. Here's why. And remember IANAL, so this could all be way off base.

California is asserting that they can not only refuse to enforce federal laws they disagree with, but that they can go one step further and actively subvert the enforcement efforts of the federal government by, among other things, refusing to share information on folks who have violated those federal laws they disagree with. I would love to see the state of Texas do the same thing with any new federal restrictions on guns.

At it's core, I think this is a question of state's rights. The SCOTUS has already ruled that enforcement of immigration laws is the purview of the federal government and not the states back when Arizona passed some state laws related to the enforcement of federal laws, so clearly it's not a question of whether the federal government has the authority to make or enforce the immigration laws that apply in California. California's only real argument is that they don't have to help the feds in any enforcement action. I can see their point on that front, and I sincerely wish that Texas would do the same thing with regard to federal laws that we disagree with.

This could include federal efforts to restrict the sale or possession of certain types of guns and gun accessories (bump stocks, etc). But it could also apply more broadly. If the federal government wants to enforce environmental laws, they can do it without any access whatsoever to property ownership records or other information that is obtained by the state, for example. Or maybe we could give them intentionally false property ownership records, and tip off businesses and property owners when federal agencies were planning to stop by to see if there were any environmental law violations...

I am hopeful that a California win in this case would establish a significant precedent for the cause of state's rights in general. File this under the heading of "unintended consequences" for all the California liberals who generally like an all powerful federal government that can order state's around. Unfortunately, I believe that we already have precedent for this back when Alabama decided they didn't much like the new federal desegregation laws in the 1960's and the then-President of the U.S. responded by federalizing the Alabama National Guard. I don't foresee a ruling here that reverses that course and starts to actually strengthen state's rights.

RogueUSMC wrote:My first Computer had no hard drive...lol. The 5.25 inch floppies would hold 144kb of data unless you splurged on the high density ones that would hold 1.2 Mb...lol. I have web resolution images that won't fit on one of those...lol...

My very first computer was a Commador Vic 20. I bought an optional cassette drive that plugged into the computer so I could save the programs I wrote (in Basic). It used standard audio cassettes. That was sometime in the early to mid 1980's.

lama wrote:Wait! FLOPPY disks you mean they had flexible CDs?!?!

A really big phone that can't make calls? Noone really calls away texting is all you really need anyway.

Your condescending tone would be better placed towards floppy disks, maybe how they were hard and hard disks were floppy. Even 21 year olds these days were bought up before phones were the pocket supercomputers they were today. (I know because I am only a few years older)

Please note that that I took your comment in jest and intend my to be the same.

Yes, it was in jest. Didn't mean to be condescending.

BTW, the disks in question really were "floppy". The 5 1/4 inch version. Not the compact 3 1/2 inch "hard floppy" disks.

strogg wrote:Welcome to what many lawyers call the "Touchy Feely State." They are unique with a notion of comparative responsibility, where partial blame can be assigned to multiple parties. This leads to a lot of crap lawsuits. I'm so glad I escaped that gestapo. I personally know a victim of such a lawsuit. A drunk high school student stumbled and jaywalked across the street of a poorly lit highway in the middle of the night, then was struck by a vehicle. Police and insurance adjusters both saw her as at fault. But what happens? Her family sues the driver of said vehicle for $1.2M in damages. Just wow. Fortunately for the driver, the judge pretty much threw the case out.

They probably calculated the $1.2M based on the amount of lost future food stamps and welfare that the kid would have received during her lifetime.

This whole thread sounds like an extreme of the "I can't do anything unless someone tells me to do it" mentality. I saw this when I was graduating from college and prepping for the CPA exam. There were two choices. An online* repository of past exam questions or a classroom setting where an instructor would walk you through the same questions and assign you homework to go over them. The online version was about 1/5th the cost, so I went with that. All of my friends paid more for the classroom session because in their words, "I won't ever actually do the work unless an instructor is forcing me to". I passed all 4 parts of the exam the first time. None of my 5 friends passed more than one part. It truly is amazing how you don't need to be smarter than the other guy as long as you are willing to out work them.

* This was in the mid-1990's before Al Gore invented the internet, so by "online" I mean a stack of floppy disks that you put in your computer. And for the younger members here, a computer is like a really big phone that doesn't make calls.