TexasCHLforum.com

dhoobler wrote:I wonder how liberals would react if Texas became a sanctuary state for NFA firearms.

Hopefully their reaction would be to flee the state!

I just arranged a loan to clear my property taxes today. I could 100% finance a $100K Corvette and pay it off with interest in six years, or I can pay my taxes. My old truck has to be good enough for me, the State property tax folks get the Corvette I could have had.

I was born and raised in Austin, now living near Waco, but I assume my tax is at least somewhat affected by nonsense elsewhere in the State. If there isn't more to the story - and what more could there be? - I do not pay any portion of that Sheriff's wages willingly.

If Texas ever secedes, please, please, please let the rest of us secede from Austin.

However, I do believe in even justice for all. I don't look at a premeditated criminal any differently if the criminal wears a badge.

No, wait, actually, I think I do. "Contemptible" is such a weak word for abuse of office like that.

carlson1 wrote:There should be more than holding funds to a Law Enforcement Officer who refuses to uphold the law.

I agree there should be severe consequences if a state law enforcement official refuses to enforce state laws or the local laws where they are commissioned.

However, I have no argument with state law enforcement officials refusing to help the federales enforce federal laws, as long as their refusal is across the board (drugs, guns, taxes, EPA, OSHA, ad naus) and not based on personal biases. I would even support a state law to that effect.

ninjabread wrote:

carlson1 wrote:There should be more than holding funds to a Law Enforcement Officer who refuses to uphold the law.

... I have no argument with state law enforcement officials refusing to help the federales enforce federal laws, as long as their refusal is across the board (drugs, guns, taxes, EPA, OSHA, ad naus) and not based on personal biases. I would even support a state law to that effect.

That's an interesting thought.

bblhd672,

As you probably already know: "Useful Idiots" is a characterization of the gullible who help and support horrors like marxism/socialism, etc.

Austin is full of them, along with Houston/San A./Dallas, etc.

Where ever masses of the unwashed huddle you'll find herds of these cretins.

ninjabread wrote:

carlson1 wrote:There should be more than holding funds to a Law Enforcement Officer who refuses to uphold the law.

I agree there should be severe consequences if a state law enforcement official refuses to enforce state laws or the local laws where they are commissioned.

However, I have no argument with state law enforcement officials refusing to help the federales enforce federal laws, as long as their refusal is across the board (drugs, guns, taxes, EPA, OSHA, ad naus) and not based on personal biases. I would even support a state law to that effect.

Enforcing borders and immigration is actually one of the few constitutional responsibilities the Feds have. Most of the rest of what they do they have taken from the states or us.

Anyone attempting to thwart their enforcement of current immigration LAW should be met with a swift and certain arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing.

anygunanywhere wrote:Anyone attempting to thwart their enforcement of current immigration LAW should be met with a swift and certain arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing.

There is a vast chasm between thwarting X and aiding and abetting X.

bblhd672 wrote:

dhoobler wrote:I wonder how liberals would react if Texas became a sanctuary state for NFA firearms.

Hopefully their reaction would be to flee the state!

God blessed Texas with his own hands!! Need to keep it holy!

In my opinion any law enforcement official who will not uphold or enforce the laws of Texas and the United States after swearing to do so is committing fraud by collecting their salary, especially considering they make a public statement that they will not fulfill their duty.

tbrown wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Anyone attempting to thwart their enforcement of current immigration LAW should be met with a swift and certain arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing.

There is a vast chasm between thwarting X and aiding and abetting X.

Not so much. Both needs to wind you up in prison.

anygunanywhere wrote:

tbrown wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Anyone attempting to thwart their enforcement of current immigration LAW should be met with a swift and certain arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing.

There is a vast chasm between thwarting X and aiding and abetting X.

Not so much. Both needs to wind you up in prison.

I'm in favor of sending local LEO to prison if they aid and abet the feds.

ninjabread wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

tbrown wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Anyone attempting to thwart their enforcement of current immigration LAW should be met with a swift and certain arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing.

There is a vast chasm between thwarting X and aiding and abetting X.

Not so much. Both needs to wind you up in prison.

I'm in favor of sending local LEO to prison if they aid and abet the feds.

I see. So you think there is no constitution at all.

There have been many discussions amongst the 2A community about states resisting the federal government's attempts to infringe on the 2nd amendment, and rightly so. There are many examples of the Texas Attorney General suing the fed when they overstep their constitutional duties and infringe on both state and individual rights.

The constitution is the law and when the fed actually enforces constitutional federal law dealing with immigration and securing the border no anyone who steps in the way or attempts to circumvent the enforcement or who resists their attempts or fails to obey the laws must be prosecuted and jailed.

Not supporting the proper enforcement of the law is anarchy, and those of you who support those who defy the law are anarchists and are no better than those who are rioting and destroying property in the name of first amendment rights.

ninjabread wrote:

carlson1 wrote:There should be more than holding funds to a Law Enforcement Officer who refuses to uphold the law.

I agree there should be severe consequences if a state law enforcement official refuses to enforce state laws or the local laws where they are commissioned.

However, I have no argument with state law enforcement officials refusing to help the federales enforce federal laws, as long as their refusal is across the board (drugs, guns, taxes, EPA, OSHA, ad naus) and not based on personal biases. I would even support a state law to that effect.

Ninjabread, I certainly hope you are just joking, but in case your not, are these examples of how you think local and State LEO should handle their jobs?

Someone is kidnapped, and transported into Texas, the State and local LEO should just ignore them?
An FBI most wanted fugitive who is a multi state serial killer should just be left alone by the local LEO?
Just tell the State and local police when they get a bank robbery call, to let the Federal authorities respond?
International terrorists take children hostage and threaten to blow them up. just wait on ICE, and ATFE to respond to deport them and diffuse the bombs?
State troopers should not try to stop the flow of cocaine, and heroin, by stopping trucks crossing the border?

LEO must swear an oath to enforce local, State, and Federal law, refusing to do so, is not only reprehensible, but should be grounds for arrest.

The Oklahoma City bomber would not have been caught if it wasn't for a state trooper, making a traffic stop.
The DC sniper would not have been caught if it wasn't for local LEO.
I don't know of any local and State LEO enforcing EPA regulations, OSHA regulations, or tax fraud, but they can and should serve warrants issued by federal authorities.

I'm not sure why you think Federal laws should be ignored by State and local LEO, but it won't be a good thing if it happens. JMHO

anygunanywhere wrote:

ninjabread wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

tbrown wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Anyone attempting to thwart their enforcement of current immigration LAW should be met with a swift and certain arrest, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing.

There is a vast chasm between thwarting X and aiding and abetting X.

Not so much. Both needs to wind you up in prison.

I'm in favor of sending local LEO to prison if they aid and abet the feds.

I see. So you think there is no constitution at all.

Sorry, no. Quite the opposite really.

Just because I agreed with your suggestion above, please don't assume I share all your views.

Jusme wrote:Ninjabread, I certainly hope you are just joking, but in case your not, are these examples of how you think local and State LEO should handle their jobs?

Someone is kidnapped, and transported into Texas, the State and local LEO should just ignore them?

I think Texas law prohibits unlawful restraint and kidnapping even if the initial abduction was out of state.

An FBI most wanted fugitive who is a multi state serial killer should just be left alone by the local LEO?

I think Texas law prohibits murder too. I think I read somewhere about Texas LEO cooperating with other states, even when criminals aren't on some FBI list.

Just tell the State and local police when they get a bank robbery call, to let the Federal authorities respond?

I think Texas law prohibits robbery. Is this a trick question?

International terrorists take children hostage and threaten to blow them up. just wait on ICE, and ATFE to respond to deport them and diffuse the bombs?

I think Texas law prohibits this too. Are you saying Texas law has an exemption for international terrorists?

State troopers should not try to stop the flow of cocaine, and heroin, by stopping trucks crossing the border?

Do they have a warrant or some other reason to search? I don't support randomly stopping pickup trucks coming across the border from Oklahoma just because there might be blow or horse in some of the trucks.