Its the history and respect that these things have they are traditionally a way of legislators kissing constituent's donkeys with out actually doing anything. These things just aren't respectable pieces of legislation. This is a way of appeasing the disenchanted right wing guntoting churchgoing conservatives without going out on a limb and actually doing anything. If they actually passed laws that ignored the mandates that actually be meaningful. Unfortunately the only states that have done this are the states that have legalized medical marijauna. Texas isn't likely to consider that as an option. They could take a stand with gun legislation and legalize gun ownership for certain people that the feds disallow, we could make Texas a sort of sanctuary state for gun owners. One point where we both agree though is that Texas and every one else needs to start taking the 10th seriously, and demanding that our elected leader respect it.The Annoyed Man wrote:Liberty, I'll grant that it may not have any teeth to it, but it still has value for a couple of reasons in my opinion.
One reason is that it reminds Texans that they have constitutional rights over which the federal government has no constitutional authority, and which the federal government abrogates every single day. Texans shouldn't hate federal government as conceived in the Constitution, but they should be disappointed by what it has become since then, and they should be motivated to choose candidates for federal office wisely, vote wisely, and hold their federal representatives accountable for every action they take which strays from their constitutional authority. In so doing, it helps to build up in the minds of Texans the idea that they should stop looking to the federal government to solve every little problem.
Another reason is that we are one of the largest states in the union, not just in square miles, but in population also. Nobody is going to pay much attention nationally if Rhode Island makes a similar declaration, because of that state's diminutive size. But when larger states enact such resolutions, it tends to resonate with residents of other states (meaning no disrespect to the citizens of Rhode Island). To date, 31 states have either passed or introduced similar pending resolutions. This is important because there appears to be a trend of states fighting back and reclaiming their sovereignty. If enough states do it, particularly those states with larger populations, then it serves notice to the federal government that a line has been drawn in the sand, and it serves to remind residents of other states that they should stop looking to the federal government to solve all of their problems.
Kieth, this thread has everything to do gun rights, While our legislature is likely to to let progun bills die because they just run out of time. Of all the issues where the feds illegally regulate outside the parameters of the 10th amendment its gun the RKBA . I believe that it is unarguable that the federal government has no right to tell some who was involved in a domestic dispute that they can't purchase a gun. The tenth amendment makes it very clear that the feds have no right passing Brady legislation. We cant seperate one of the Bill of rights from the other they are all conceived and tied together. This is a civil and polite discussion of very like minded gunowners, who are discussing rights as it pertains to us as gun owners. Please don't lock this!! Although we've all probably said all that we have to say about it already