Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

This forum is for general legislative discussions not specific to any given legislative session. It will remain open.

Moderator: carlson1


jb2012
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 821
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:12 pm

Re: Interesting bill regarding guns made in Texas

#16

Post by jb2012 » Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:36 pm

TreyHouston wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:25 pm

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washin ... -over-sta/

“A federal judge spared from prison two Kansas men convicted of federal firearms violations after taking into account Monday their mistaken belief that a Kansas law can shield from federal prosecution anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state.”

Both got a felony charge and 2 years probation. Lives destroyed anyways

VERY interesting case. Even compared to marijuana in Colorado. Theor AG and governor would not back them in court either. Very interesting case
Definitely interesting. I also believe the fact that they were manufacturing suppressors for business profit played a larger role in their prosecution than making the items themselves. I could be wrong but I haven’t seen anyone prosecuted solely for assembling their own sbr/sbs/suppressor and having for personal use in those states. Nevertheless they were prosecuted and will likely never own a firearm again without some legal miracle.

User avatar

der Teufel
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 340
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:31 pm
Location: In the vicinity of Austin

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#17

Post by der Teufel » Mon Nov 12, 2018 8:02 pm

Cox was making suppressors or parts as a business. Kettler was 'simply' a happy customer. He made the mistake of posting about his suppressor on his Facebook page, which brought it to the attention of the Feds.

So, one guy was indeed conducting a business, but Kettler was not.
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition. — Rudyard Kipling
NRA Life Member
TSRA Life Member


K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#18

Post by K.Mooneyham » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:03 pm

I don't think the bill declaring Texas-made and owned firearms not being subject to Federal jurisdiction will pass muster, especially in light of what has happened in other states. However, the other bill about not aiding the Feds regarding gun laws, not in conjunction with another crime, might. After all, can the Feds COMPEL assistance from state, county, or municipal law enforcement? In a similar vein, there is the situation that the State of New York found itself in when the so-called "SAFE Act" was passed up there. The bulk of NY State Sheriffs came together and stated that they wouldn't waste any resources enforcing the provisions of that law not in conjunction with some other crime. Maybe one of our properly-schooled folks, and I know we have a few of them here, can give their take on this.

User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: San Antonio area

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#19

Post by SewTexas » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:27 pm

umm....it's too early for them to be filing bills yet, isn't it? I thought that couldn't happen until sometime in Jan?
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir

User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 10847
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: Interesting bill regarding guns made in Texas

#20

Post by Oldgringo » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:30 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 4:47 pm
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?
I agree with TAM. Texas is a state in the Republic. These two bills fall under the heading of El Stupido.

User avatar

Topic author
mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 8947
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#21

Post by mojo84 » Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:44 pm

SewTexas wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:27 pm
umm....it's too early for them to be filing bills yet, isn't it? I thought that couldn't happen until sometime in Jan?
Nope.


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-le ... 19-session

User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: San Antonio area

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#22

Post by SewTexas » Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:07 pm

mojo84 wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:44 pm
SewTexas wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:27 pm
umm....it's too early for them to be filing bills yet, isn't it? I thought that couldn't happen until sometime in Jan?
Nope.


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-le ... 19-session

OK, time to build a new section in my planner.....
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3458
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#23

Post by chasfm11 » 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.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

PriestTheRunner
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 502
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#24

Post by PriestTheRunner » Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:30 pm

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.
Agreed completely (and what I was trying to state upthread).
PriestTheRunner wrote:
Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:16 pm
So my two cents on this bill is that it is simply another way to take Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis vs US to the supreme court now that we have a R majority.
I think it would be great for us to sue to address the legality of the circumstances.... And hopefully overturn Wickard v. Filburn while we are at it.

That was very nearly the first domino that led us to this situation with unrestrained federal authority.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24699
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#25

Post by The Annoyed Man » Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:15 pm

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.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3458
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#26

Post by chasfm11 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:11 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:15 pm
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.
I'm not arguing for or against the bill without further information either. I simply grabbed the side that says just because of rampant abuse doesn't make it right. I agree that two Conservative justices in SCOTUS (and hopefully three soon) might make a difference.

Regarding sanctuary cities, etc., the Federal government is clearly given that Constitutional responsibility. I view the argument for allowing States that kind of power on this topic as further erosion of the Constitution but am not surprised, given who is doing it. I think there could be a argument for consistency on the Constitution by the GOP if they would stop eroding it, too.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

RPBrown
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4435
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 11:56 am
Location: Irving, Texas

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#27

Post by RPBrown » Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:53 am

To slightly change the subject, to have this many bills to file this soon after the election, I think there were a number of them already written just in hopes of a win on election night. Some may have even passed from the hands of a loser to a winner to bring in.
NRA-Benefactor Life member
TSRA-Life member
Image


Soccerdad1995
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 3743
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:03 pm

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#28

Post by Soccerdad1995 » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:20 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 10:15 pm
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.
After 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.
Ding dong, the witch is dead

User avatar

Scott B.
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:46 am
Location: Harris County

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#29

Post by Scott B. » Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:52 am

Manufacturing Title 1 firearms is one thing. Manufacturing anything covered by the National Firearms Act is an entirely different kettle of fish - at least when it comes to entertaining the federal prosecutors.

May not be the way it should be, but is most definitely the way things are.
LTC / SSC Instructor. NRA - Instructor, CRSO, Life Member.
Sig pistol/rifle & Glock armorer | FFL 07/02 SOT

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 24699
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Interesting gun bills filed for 2019 session

#30

Post by The Annoyed Man » Wed Nov 14, 2018 6:44 pm

Soccerdad1995 wrote:
Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:20 am
After 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.
Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself.—Hookalakah Meshobbab
I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes.—The Annoyed Boy

Post Reply

Return to “General Legislative Discussions”