TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:20 amAfter Trump appoints 2+ additional constitutionalists to the SCOTUS, I am hopeful that we will see things like the abuse of the commerce clause and civil asset forfeiture declared unconstitutional. That's why the SCOTUS will be the most important part of Trump's legacy. The next democrat President will destroy his economy and re-impose burdensome regulations, but it will take them much longer to reverse his improvements on the highest court in the land.

Amen to clarifying the Commerce Clause, but I think that Civil Asset Forfeiture is the greatest of all the injustices that gov’ts engage in - at ANY level. I can’t quote the cite, but I was under the impression that SCOTUS had already addressed it and ruled in gov’t’s favor. Am I wrong about that? Please God, let me be wrong. If I am, then it is my prayer that SCOTUS will eventually revisit it and kill it.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:08 pm OK TAM. I'll jump into the devil's advocate role.

1. What part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to regulate anything built and used in Texas?. I get it that power has been usurped in situations like the farmer growing crops for his own use being declared interstate commerce. That was a real stretch and should have been slapped down. Like "shall not be infringed", "interstate" has been twisted to mean things that it shouldn't.
2. I think that I understand the interpretation of supremacy clause and that to overturn a Federal law, a State should have to take the Feds to court over it, not try to nullify it with their own laws. But if the Federal law is outside of its granted powers, the State should win, based on the 10th Amendment.

My $.02.

Just to be clear, I am NOT arguing against this bill. ALL I am doing is pointing out that it is vulnerable to the same kind of criticisms from the left that the right uses against sanctuary city/state immigration laws. There have been times in our history when it was the wrong thing to do, but as a general thing, I tend to favor states telling the fed gov’t where/when to step off.

To answer your question, Congress has used the commerce clause to abuse all kinds of things. They’re not about to stop either. You’re right. A federal attempt to regulate manufacturing that never leaves the sate is bunk. But they do it anyway, and I predict that if this law is challenged, it will be done either under the Commerce Clause, or by somehow extending ATF’s mandate into this area.

The flip side of that is that we’ve gotten two new conservative justices, and might get another one if RBG steps down. So if the issue ever get’s to SCOTUS, the ruling on the topic may well go our way. We’ll see.

mojo84 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:30 pm Another one.

Another gun bill by @RepMattKrause, HB 238, would bar state agencies, local governments from helping the feds enforce gun regulations in Texas. Exempted: border security operations. #txlege

I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand, I’ll take anything that protects gun rights in Texas. But on the other hand, there is little difference between this tactic, and states that declare themselves “sanctuary states” for the purposes of protecting illegal immigrants from ICE. Both are examples of a state defying federal law by passing a state law that forbids state lawn enforcement from cooperating with federal law enforcement in that specific area of the law. It seems to me that gun rights activists make themselves vulnerable to the exact same arguments that conservatives would use to invalidate immigration sanctuary, used against a pro-gun law like that.

Thoughts?