TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:We don't need another amendment. We need to make them obey the first ten. That could get unpleasant but Thomas Jefferson warned us about that.

Forum Rule 4 wrote:4. No posting of messages promoting illegal conduct.

Stop now.
Chas.

Dave2 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The constitutional authority for LEOSA is the Commerce Clause. It's been so perverted that just about anything the U.S. Congress wants to do will be found constitutional, if it based upon the Commerce Clause.

I was just thinking about this earlier today. How did its meaning get so muddled? Was there a specific SCOTUS decision, or a series of them, or did congress just want a way to get more authority and they figured the commerce clause was vague enough to give it to them? Something else that I haven't thought of? All of the above? Also, what would have to be done to fix it? Could congress just pass a law defining it more clearly, or is a full-on constitutional amendment required? (Not that anyone in congress would ever vote to take away their own power...)

Edit: Or could a reversal of some number of SCOTUS decisions do it?

It has been a series of decisions since Franklin Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court by adding enough judges to get his unconstitutional plan to get us out of the Great Depression past a constitutional challenge. He was loosing until the court packing plan was clearly going to pass Congress. Some people think FDR was the person who saved the U.S. and got us out of the depression. He wasn't; he was a criminal who cared nothing about the constitution and who violated federal law in shipping war material to England during WWII. He can be credited as being the beginning of the end of constitutional government in the United States. He was hands down the worst thing that ever happened to the United States. (My mother is spinning in her grave now. Sorry Mom, I'm right and you were wrong.)


Chas.

megs wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

Ameer wrote:In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

The constitution says that the feds can't specifically allow LEOs and (most) retired LEOs to carry their guns? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know why you'd be right.

Where does the constitution say they can?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So unless the constitution delegates that power to the feds, it's not constitutional for the feds to do that.

The constitutional authority for LEOSA is the Commerce Clause. It's been so perverted that just about anything the U.S. Congress wants to do will be found constitutional, if it based upon the Commerce Clause. The only remaining hope is to argue that a particular law invades the police powers of the states. LEOSA just might do that, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Chas.

Ameer wrote:In that case, the constitution trumps federal law, so LEOSA and most (all?) federal gun laws are null and void.

Not until the U.S. Supreme Court says so.

Chas.

Here's a very condensed history on reciprocity in the Texas Gov't Code. When CHL passed in 1995, DPS was responsible for negotiating reciprocity agreements. The laws of the other state has to be as stringent as Texas law or more so. The combination of the legal requirement and extreme reluctance of one particular attorney at DPS resulted in only 6 or 7 reciprocity agreements with other states.

We changed the law (I can't recall when,but I think 2003) reducing the legal requirements for obtaining reciprocity. (It was further reduced in 2005.) The bill also shifted responsiblity for negotiating reciprocity agreements from DPS to the Governor, after he receives an annual report from the Attorney General. The bill also requires the Governor to issue unilateral recognition proclamations if reciprocity agreements cannot be obtained. The combination of Gov. Perry and AG Greg Abbott resulted in a huge increase in reciprocity agreements.

Some people understandably don't like issuing unilateral proclamations recognizing licenses from states that don't recognize a Texas CHL. It is irritating, but I still think we did the right thing in the bill. New York residents should not be penalized and disarmed in Texas simply because their state government won't recognize a Texas license.

Chas.