TexasCHLforum.com

Keep Cornyn. Every single time I have written his office, I have gotten back a statement that supports the Second Amendment 100%

JALLEN wrote:Just in case you guys decide to run Cornyn off, I might propose a trade for Feinstein, Boxer, Mooonbeam and maybe a buffoon to be named later., and probably the SF 49's too.

Cornyn is an absolute prince compared to what we here have had to endure.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Cornyn has always supported the Second Amendment, and I believe he always will.

He attends and speaks at 2A events, and he has never failed to respond to my letters urging him to keep-up the fight for our Constitutional rights.

O.F.Fascist wrote: Well we have some time between now and then to find out if that stays the case. I still think its good to get some other names out there just in case Cornyn decides to vote for "Universal Background Checks" AKA prohibiting of private sales as some sort of lame compromise...

ANY elected official that votes for or supports a "Universal Background Check" will earn my eternal opposition.

If the Texas Republican Party goes along with this, I'm out of that as well, exploring the Libertarian Party.

I have no doubt that however it is structured, positioned, written or implemented, that a Universal Background Check is a first step to National Registration, which is the first stage of potential confiscation.

It's my hope that Governor Perry and the Legislature put some sort of State Law in place negating any Federal requirement for private sale background checks.

Jeff B.

Jeff B. wrote: It's my hope that Governor Perry and the Legislature put some sort of State Law in place negating any Federal requirement for private sale background checks.

Jeff B.

A state may not enact a law that negates feceral law. Federal law always trumps state unless the state law enhances the federal law (aka makes it more strengent). This is why you have seen the bills looking to make enforcement of federal gun laws illegal in states. The law would still be valid, just not allowed to be enforced.

So, in this case if they do pass mandatory private sale background checks you would still be in violation of the law if you sold FTF wihtout one.

O.F.Fascist wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

O.F.Fascist wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Cronyn has never voted against gun owners. That deserves our support.

Well we have some time between now and then to find out if that stays the case. I still think its good to get some other names out there just in case Cornyn decides to vote for "Universal Background Checks" AKA prohibiting of private sales as some sort of lame ass compromise.

Will you support him if he continues his support for the Second Amendment?

Chas.

If he continues to oppose all "anti-gun" legislation, and doesn't support anything else that would infringes on civil liberties then yes.

Well, that's part of an answer. What other "civil liberties" do you mean?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Well, that's part of an answer. What other "civil liberties" do you mean?

Chas.

I'm also a big fan of the 1st and 4th amendments, and don't think we need more laws to protect people from themselves.

Cronyn is quick to respond to any letters/email, and has always reinterred his support for the 2A. I appreciate that in an elected official.

Keith B wrote:

Jeff B. wrote: It's my hope that Governor Perry and the Legislature put some sort of State Law in place negating any Federal requirement for private sale background checks.

Jeff B.

A state may not enact a law that negates feceral law. Federal law always trumps state unless the state law enhances the federal law (aka makes it more strengent). This is why you have seen the bills looking to make enforcement of federal gun laws illegal in states. The law would still be valid, just not allowed to be enforced.

So, in this case if they do pass mandatory private sale background checks you would still be in violation of the law if you sold FTF wihtout one.

Wouldn't such laws make it so that the feds would get no state or local support enforcing federal gun laws though. Sure violating federal gun law would still be illegal but if the feds want to prosecute them they would have to do all the heavy lifting themselves instead of the locals. Just like in states where marijuana is legal. Force the feds to waste their resources to enforce their stupid laws while the locals will focus on real crimes.

I've written him a few times and have got good responses. I'm on a mailing list for him as well.

I hate it when the NRA backs a guy and then the guy stabs them/us in the back! Mostly dems of course.

O.F.Fascist wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Jeff B. wrote: It's my hope that Governor Perry and the Legislature put some sort of State Law in place negating any Federal requirement for private sale background checks.

Jeff B.

A state may not enact a law that negates feceral law. Federal law always trumps state unless the state law enhances the federal law (aka makes it more strengent). This is why you have seen the bills looking to make enforcement of federal gun laws illegal in states. The law would still be valid, just not allowed to be enforced.

So, in this case if they do pass mandatory private sale background checks you would still be in violation of the law if you sold FTF wihtout one.

Wouldn't such laws make it so that the feds would get no state or local support enforcing federal gun laws though. Sure violating federal gun law would still be illegal but if the feds want to prosecute them they would have to do all the heavy lifting themselves instead of the locals. Just like in states where marijuana is legal. Force the feds to waste their resources to enforce their stupid laws while the locals will focus on real crimes.

What the OP stated was it he hoped that a law would pass negating the requirement for private sale background checks. That can't be done as you can't have a local law that superceedes federal law. What we are bills being introduced to make it illegal to enforce federal gun laws. So, with that type of law it would still be a legal requirement to do a background check, but would be illegal for somoene to try and enforce the law in the state.

Actually, there is an interesting question whether the Feds have legislative jurisdiction over wholly intrastate sales between private individuals (those not holding an FFL). The Federal nexus, if there is one at all, would be thinner than a sheet of paper.

With respect to Sen. Cornyn, his remarks to the TSRA Annual Meeting were fully supportive of our 2nd Amendment rights, as were those of Texas Atty Gen Greg Abbott.

I, for one, would be more interested in seeing a few state and federal representatives from Houston replaced.

Credit to the moderators, particularly Keith in allowing this discussion to go on as it has in a civil and practically focused manner.

IMO, we are about to enter new ground legally speaking as these debates (and laws) touch greater numbers of the population.

Great discussion!

Jeff B.

Richard_B wrote:Actually, there is an interesting question whether the Feds have legislative jurisdiction over wholly intrastate sales between private individuals (those not holding an FFL). The Federal nexus, if there is one at all, would be thinner than a sheet of paper.

In spirit, I agree. In practice, however.....

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Granted that this is taken from Wikipedia ( ), it is a fair summary of the case. And this case still stands today. So sales of firearms between private individuals is within Federal jurisdiction, at least based on case law.

RottenApple,

The case which is generally regarded as "the high watter mark" of the commerce clause is Katzenbach v. McClung, aka the Ollie's BBQ case. It involved a small BBQ restaurant several miles away from the nearest federally funded highway. Skipping ahead, the court held that the impact of this obscure restaurant on interstate travel and commerce (and involving civil rights which are not a commerce clause issue, but are broader in scope, were sufficient, though rather indirectly due to the sales of products involved in interstate commerce (e.g. The catsup on the table) to have an effect upon interstate commerce. Some subsequent cases involved "instrumentalities of interstate commerce", such as telephone communications, whereas some of the current challenges to the assertion of federal jurisdiction involve the manufacture of firearms wholly within a particular state for sale only to the residents of that state are based upon the belief of many observers that Katzenbach would not.be similarly decided before the court today.

I have not recently read the case you cite, but most farm crop price support cases involve the fact that the complainant subjects himself to federal jurisdiction by participation in the federal program.

Only time will tell whether the S.Ct will rule based upon the law or political expediency which has been shown in a number of recent cases.

Cheers

No matter how the cases were decided in the past, it's plain to any reasonable person that the courts have stretched the commerce clause well beyond its limits in their attempt to bend over in obeisance to Congress. The idea that a BBQ joint on the side of a federal highway could be involved in interstate commerce is laughable on its face. It's hard to see how the Justices can look at themselves in the mirror considering their complete lack of integrity to the written words of the Constitution. The Court is supposed to be a check on the power of the Executive and Legislative branches, not a rubber stamp for every anti-federalist piece of legislation that Congress can dream up.