TexasCHLforum.com

Just wanted to apologize for getting so passionate with my responses last night. I'm tired of seeing the history of "compromise". The people have allowed the government to take more and more from us. I feel (it is my opinion) that SCOTUS giving itself the power to declare any law it wants to constitutional is the fault, coupled to ignorant americans.

How far until NDAA is found constitutional, even though it's a 100% clear 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment violation? Because all it would take is for SCOTUS to say "YUP!" and it's law. Then every gun carrying person will be kneejerk called a fear monger and a threat, and we're all in camps.

What happened to constitutional amendments? What happened to following the rules, and obeying the constraints?

We have no way to protect ourselves anymore from anything this government decides it wants to do to us.

So, I am sorry, Chas, and others. I just want some kind of security to know that everything is being done to protect me, and my rights. I am legitimately scared, and I need reassurance.

I understand the debate as to whether the law would be meaningful in that it may well be trumped by federal law. However, we are a nation founded on principle and eventually we will have to make the choice to stand up for those principles or sit down and keep out mouth shut.

These laws make a statement and they show that we have made a choice. It shows that we have chosen to stand together in resistance to laws which violate the constitution.

Let's say for a moment that Feinstein's bill or one similar to it passes. Much like the impact of a Texas sized asteroid, it will eventually happen given enough time. Take in to account the unpredictable nature of our government and the people of this nation it may happen very soon. It may very well go far beyond even what Feinstein has in mind. At that point will you be turning in your firearms, will you hide them, will you have any support at all?

At some point people will be required to stand up to the fed government regarding gun control and IMO the best way to do that would be as a state with our state law enforcement backing us. There are already 5 states who have passed these laws and SC looking at it. How many states do you think the federal government would attempt to take on. There have already been cases of sheriffs departments running federal agents out of town due to ridiculous federal regulation that puts good people on the wrong side of some ill conceived federal law. The thought that the fed is so powerful the we could not resist it at the state level is, IMO, laughable.

We will eventually have to take a stand on a large scale, the few who are worried about our votes may not be enough to sway the vote and with the numerous backroom deals that take place in DC many are likely to vote one way or another based on an owed favor or bargaining for an upcoming vote. I only hope we do not wait so long that their is little left to stand up and defend. It will be much harder to get our rights back than it will be to preserve them to begin with.

Jeff Barriault wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This idea has been discussed in other threads and it won't work. States can't void federal law by passing a state law that essentially "opts out."

I know all of the philosophical arguments, but it won't work. I don't want the most pro-gun Governor we've ever had pushing something like this and loosing the next election because his Democrat challenger points out the futility of such a bill.

Chas.

I have to disagree Charles. How many states have presently successfully "opted-out" of federal marijuana legislation?

The bill discussed may not be the best, but I'll have to say that I think the principle of nullification of unconstitutional federal laws encompasses a path we should all seek. We need to find new and creative ways to enforce our tenth amendment rights. Simple things that put the feds on notice and say, "Hey, this law of yours is constitutionally out of your jurisdiction. And we will fine y'all and/or throw your rear in jail if we catch y'all attempting to enforce it within our state."

Actually Precisely NONE have successfully opted out. Just recently a Pharmacological MJ Grower/Seller got 5 years in the pen after being prosecuted by a US Attorney in Montana.

A similar confrontation exists in states like Colorado, and Wasington who have asserted their own prerogatives in regards to personal use marijuana possession.

Federal law may technically trump state law..but without the consent of the governed.......government has a predicament.

I see more and more likelyhood of the states pulling back...and even pushing back against this federal beast. That is good..and long overdue.

Stephen wrote:I understand the debate as to whether the law would be meaningful in that it may well be trumped by federal law. However, we are a nation founded on principle and eventually we will have to make the choice to stand up for those principles or sit down and keep out mouth shut.

These laws make a statement and they show that we have made a choice. It shows that we have chosen to stand together in resistance to laws which violate the constitution.

Let's say for a moment that Feinstein's bill or one similar to it passes. Much like the impact of a Texas sized asteroid, it will eventually happen given enough time. Take in to account the unpredictable nature of our government and the people of this nation it may happen very soon. It may very well go far beyond even what Feinstein has in mind. At that point will you be turning in your firearms, will you hide them, will you have any support at all?

At some point people will be required to stand up to the fed government regarding gun control and IMO the best way to do that would be as a state with our state law enforcement backing us. There are already 5 states who have passed these laws and SC looking at it. How many states do you think the federal government would attempt to take on. There have already been cases of sheriffs departments running federal agents out of town due to ridiculous federal regulation that puts good people on the wrong side of some ill conceived federal law. The thought that the fed is so powerful the we could not resist it at the state level is, IMO, laughable.

We will eventually have to take a stand on a large scale, the few who are worried about our votes may not be enough to sway the vote and with the numerous backroom deals that take place in DC many are likely to vote one way or another based on an owed favor or bargaining for an upcoming vote. I only hope we do not wait so long that their is little left to stand up and defend. It will be much harder to get our rights back than it will be to preserve them to begin with.

This post, along with several others somewhat similar, but worded more carefully, discreetly, and less pointed, get very close, in my opinion, to going just a bit too far. I have watched the drift here on the forum for some time, and I am honestly concerned as I observe what just may be a contest developing with respect to who can use the stronger language or be more macho. Given the current political situation domestically this is certainly not an unexpected development.

When I see just the 3rd post of a member joining just today sounding off this way I must conclude that perhaps a little education is in order for a few, certainly not all, of our members. Standing up for one's principles is honorable, but he or she when standing up should be sure that she or he knows just what may be at stake if their bluff is called. Nathan Hale knew just exactly what was at stake, but he stood up for his principles. But he knew, and perhaps not everyone knows.

Rosa Parks knew. John Brown knew, before he was taken down by a force of U. S. Marines led by Colonel Robert E. Lee, of the U. S. cavalry.

I would suggest that we may be well-advised to take the time to read Title 18, Chapter 115, of the U. S. Code -- all of it, but particularly Sections 2384 ("Seditious Conspiracy") and 2385 ("Advocating overthrow of Government"). Chapter 115 is readily available in several, if not many, places on the Internet. Reading Chapter 115 may be a wise new year's resolution.

I am not saying that anyone has gone too far yet -- only that some may have approached going outside the lines. When I read members saying words to the effect that "if the Feds try to enforce that law on me, I will not go down quietly, I will fight, using a deadly weapon" and then I see other members saying words to the effect of "me too, I'll be with you," I cannot help but feel that some could use a little review on concepts like "conspiracy" and an introduction to limitations on certain of the first 10 amendments. Like the 1st. The 2nd is not the only amendment which may, to the judiciary, mean less than its literal wording.

I am not saying that there are not Constitutional issues posed by Chapter 115, nor am I saying that such issues can not be posed by the government's application of the chapter to individual cases.

I will note, on the other hand, that there have been successful prosecutions of violations of Sections 2384 and 2385. It may be interesting to some of you to learn that these cases have tended to be reactions to acts and words coming from the left. Someday we may well see reactions to acts and words coming from the right. We may, for example, see the burgeoning modern "militias" lead the way.

I have been hesitant to raise this matter, as my political and moral principles are no secret here, and I will not be surprised to not be taken seriously. On the other hand, given my knowledge and experience it just may be worth the flames if I save somebody time, money or even freedom for doing something or saying something not absolutely required to support his or her principles.

Jim

SherwoodForest wrote:A similar confrontation exists in states like Colorado, and Wasington who have asserted their own prerogatives in regards to personal use marijuana possession.

Federal law may technically trump state law..but without the consent of the governed.......government has a predicament.

I see more and more likelyhood of the states pulling back...and even pushing back against this federal beast. That is good..and long overdue.

Not to beat the old dead horse too much, but here we see another one, 4th post, joined today. The contest with respect to who can be the toughest continues.

Jim

My question is, "Why are they here?" Are they really plastic carrying Texas CHL holders or are they attempting to cast the forum in a bad light? I can see MSM outlets leading off the news hour with "Texans Openly Plotting Sedition On Online Bulletin Board!" sheesh I got enough problems......

57Coastie wrote:

Stephen wrote:I understand the debate as to whether the law would be meaningful in that it may well be trumped by federal law. However, we are a nation founded on principle and eventually we will have to make the choice to stand up for those principles or sit down and keep out mouth shut.

These laws make a statement and they show that we have made a choice. It shows that we have chosen to stand together in resistance to laws which violate the constitution.

Let's say for a moment that Feinstein's bill or one similar to it passes. Much like the impact of a Texas sized asteroid, it will eventually happen given enough time. Take in to account the unpredictable nature of our government and the people of this nation it may happen very soon. It may very well go far beyond even what Feinstein has in mind. At that point will you be turning in your firearms, will you hide them, will you have any support at all?

At some point people will be required to stand up to the fed government regarding gun control and IMO the best way to do that would be as a state with our state law enforcement backing us. There are already 5 states who have passed these laws and SC looking at it. How many states do you think the federal government would attempt to take on. There have already been cases of sheriffs departments running federal agents out of town due to ridiculous federal regulation that puts good people on the wrong side of some ill conceived federal law. The thought that the fed is so powerful the we could not resist it at the state level is, IMO, laughable.

We will eventually have to take a stand on a large scale, the few who are worried about our votes may not be enough to sway the vote and with the numerous backroom deals that take place in DC many are likely to vote one way or another based on an owed favor or bargaining for an upcoming vote. I only hope we do not wait so long that their is little left to stand up and defend. It will be much harder to get our rights back than it will be to preserve them to begin with.

This post, along with several others somewhat similar, but worded more carefully, discreetly, and less pointed, get very close, in my opinion, to going just a bit too far. I have watched the drift here on the forum for some time, and I am honestly concerned as I observe what just may be a contest developing with respect to who can use the stronger language or be more macho. Given the current political situation domestically this is certainly not an unexpected development.

When I see just the 3rd post of a member joining just today sounding off this way I must conclude that perhaps a little education is in order for a few, certainly not all, of our members. Standing up for one's principles is honorable, but he or she when standing up should be sure that she or he knows just what may be at stake if their bluff is called. Nathan Hale knew just exactly what was at stake, but he stood up for his principles. But he knew, and perhaps not everyone knows.

I would suggest that we may be well-advised to take the time to read Title 18, Chapter 115, of the U. S. Code -- all of it, but particularly Sections 2384 ("Seditious Conspiracy") and 2385 ("Advocating overthrow of Government"). Chapter 115 is readily available in several, if not many, places on the Internet. Reading Chapter 115 may be a wise new year's resolution.

I am not saying that anyone has gone too far yet -- only that some may have approached going outside the lines. When I read members saying words to the effect that "if the Feds try to enforce that law on me, I will not go down quietly, I will fight, using a deadly weapon" and then I see other members saying words to the effect of "me too, I'll be with you," I cannot help but feel that some could use a little review on concepts like "conspiracy" and an introduction to limitations on certain of the first 10 amendments. Like the 1st. The 2nd is not the only amendment which may, to the judiciary, mean less than its literal wording.

I am not saying that there are not Constitutional issues posed by Chapter 115, nor am I saying that such issues can not be posed by the government's application of the chapter to individual cases.

I will note, on the other hand, that there have been successful prosecutions of violations of Sections 2384 and 2385. It may be interesting to some of you to learn that these cases have tended to be reactions to acts and words coming from the left. Someday we may well see reactions to acts and words coming from the right. We may, for example, see the burgeoning modern "militias" lead the way.

I have been hesitant to raise this matter, as my political and moral principles are no secret here, and I will not be surprised to not be taken seriously. On the other hand, given my knowledge and experience it just may be worth the flames if I save somebody time, money or even freedom for doing something or saying something not absolutely required to support his or her principles.

Jim

So then, what are YOU saying? If the government comes to your door to confiscate semi-autos, are you going to hand them over? If they come to confiscate ALL your guns, are you going to hand them over? If so, I have to ask: what is your line in the sand? At what point are you going to refuse to let the government trample your rights? Would you go to an internment camp? Granted, these are perhaps wild hypotheticals, but all of us have to decide where our limits are. To me, I have to wonder, given numerous historical examples, if they come to take my guns, what is next? If my line isn't drawn there, what do I do when they come for me and I have no guns? Frankly, I don't trust our current government. I don't trust the left, which has been unrelenting in the attempt to disarm Americans, and I see absolutely no historical basis for trusting the left. They are NEVER going to leave us alone, and no matter what we give up the very next time they can whip up an emotional frenzy they're going to come for the next round of guns, until, like in the UK, we're talking about bans on pointy kitchen knives. Geez, even Pravda is warning us about our future if we give in to the latest demands from the left.

I'm not looking for a fight. I do whatever I can to avoid conflict; but the left just won't leave us alone. They're not going to stop with semi-autos or 10 round magazines. Next is pump shotguns and handguns of all kinds. It's not like there is no precedent to consider. DiFi's proposal is even more draconian than the gun laws in the UK --where at least you can own a Ruger 10-22 with more than a 10 round magazine. The left wants to take guns away from me that I've owned for over 40 years. They want every semi-auto handgun I have.....including my 1911. And that's just the current DiFi Bill. They're literally after guns that have been in use for over 100 years. We have no reason to believe they're going to stop, and at this point, I can't even comfort myself that their aims at least won't leave us any worse off than the UK. You seem to think what they're after is trivial, but I think most of us realize they want it all.

57Coastie wrote:

Stephen wrote:I understand the debate as to whether the law would be meaningful in that it may well be trumped by federal law. However, we are a nation founded on principle and eventually we will have to make the choice to stand up for those principles or sit down and keep out mouth shut.

These laws make a statement and they show that we have made a choice. It shows that we have chosen to stand together in resistance to laws which violate the constitution.

Let's say for a moment that Feinstein's bill or one similar to it passes. Much like the impact of a Texas sized asteroid, it will eventually happen given enough time. Take in to account the unpredictable nature of our government and the people of this nation it may happen very soon. It may very well go far beyond even what Feinstein has in mind. At that point will you be turning in your firearms, will you hide them, will you have any support at all?

At some point people will be required to stand up to the fed government regarding gun control and IMO the best way to do that would be as a state with our state law enforcement backing us. There are already 5 states who have passed these laws and SC looking at it. How many states do you think the federal government would attempt to take on. There have already been cases of sheriffs departments running federal agents out of town due to ridiculous federal regulation that puts good people on the wrong side of some ill conceived federal law. The thought that the fed is so powerful the we could not resist it at the state level is, IMO, laughable.

We will eventually have to take a stand on a large scale, the few who are worried about our votes may not be enough to sway the vote and with the numerous backroom deals that take place in DC many are likely to vote one way or another based on an owed favor or bargaining for an upcoming vote. I only hope we do not wait so long that their is little left to stand up and defend. It will be much harder to get our rights back than it will be to preserve them to begin with.

This post, along with several others somewhat similar, but worded more carefully, discreetly, and less pointed, get very close, in my opinion, to going just a bit too far. I have watched the drift here on the forum for some time, and I am honestly concerned as I observe what just may be a contest developing with respect to who can use the stronger language or be more macho. Given the current political situation domestically this is certainly not an unexpected development.

When I see just the 3rd post of a member joining just today sounding off this way I must conclude that perhaps a little education is in order for a few, certainly not all, of our members. Standing up for one's principles is honorable, but he or she when standing up should be sure that she or he knows just what may be at stake if their bluff is called. Nathan Hale knew just exactly what was at stake, but he stood up for his principles. But he knew, and perhaps not everyone knows.

I would suggest that we may be well-advised to take the time to read Title 18, Chapter 115, of the U. S. Code -- all of it, but particularly Sections 2384 ("Seditious Conspiracy") and 2385 ("Advocating overthrow of Government"). Chapter 115 is readily available in several, if not many, places on the Internet. Reading Chapter 115 may be a wise new year's resolution.

I am not saying that anyone has gone too far yet -- only that some may have approached going outside the lines. When I read members saying words to the effect that "if the Feds try to enforce that law on me, I will not go down quietly, I will fight, using a deadly weapon" and then I see other members saying words to the effect of "me too, I'll be with you," I cannot help but feel that some could use a little review on concepts like "conspiracy" and an introduction to limitations on certain of the first 10 amendments. Like the 1st. The 2nd is not the only amendment which may, to the judiciary, mean less than its literal wording.

I am not saying that there are not Constitutional issues posed by Chapter 115, nor am I saying that such issues can not be posed by the government's application of the chapter to individual cases.

I will note, on the other hand, that there have been successful prosecutions of violations of Sections 2384 and 2385. It may be interesting to some of you to learn that these cases have tended to be reactions to acts and words coming from the left. Someday we may well see reactions to acts and words coming from the right. We may, for example, see the burgeoning modern "militias" lead the way.

I have been hesitant to raise this matter, as my political and moral principles are no secret here, and I will not be surprised to not be taken seriously. On the other hand, given my knowledge and experience it just may be worth the flames if I save somebody time, money or even freedom for doing something or saying something not absolutely required to support his or her principles.

Jim

It seems you may have taken my words to mean something more than I intended.

I read the forum rules and have attempted not to advocate any sort of "armed resistance" as i figured my time on this forum would be cut short. When I say "take a stand as a state" I mean in the sense of sending a message. Not lining up at the border with rifles and raising a "come and take it" flag. Yes, I am very passionate about my right to bear arms, however I have no with to cast this or any other firearms forum in a bad light as it would only feed the agenda of those who wish to remove this right. Yes, I do believe we should stand together in resistance to the actions being taken by some in washington, that does not mean physical resistance however and I have attempted to avoid the subject of confiscation while still making showing the gravity of the situation.

If you are worried about my credibility you can check my profile on texasguntalk.com, my username is younggun. You will see that I am in fact doing my best to abide by the rules of this forum and have the preservation of our rights as my motivation. you will find many posts encouraging people to contact their representatives by phone, letter, email, or all three.

I'm sorry if you feel that I am trying to one up somebody but I honestly haven't seen to many posts that are very extreme IMO.

As to seditious conspiracy, I think most are far from that point and if the feds started knocking on doors for what I have seen posted here and on the forum I generally frequent which is much more loosely moderated, I would imagine we do have a problem. Not with ourselves, but with a government that truly is going over the deep end. I don't believe stating the intended purpose of the 2nd amendment is in any way conspiritorial or seditious, just fact.

I'm somewhat at a loss for some of your first comments concerning my new membership status and my sounding off. I do not feel that we will retain our rights by sitting quietly and waiting for things to blow over. the squeeky wheel gets the grease and right now there is a lot of noise coming from those who oppose our right to bear arms. I for one will make sure they are not the only ones being heard. Again, that is in no way condoning any violent, seditious, or treasonous actions.

57Coastie wrote:

SherwoodForest wrote:A similar confrontation exists in states like Colorado, and Wasington who have asserted their own prerogatives in regards to personal use marijuana possession.

Federal law may technically trump state law..but without the consent of the governed.......government has a predicament.

I see more and more likelyhood of the states pulling back...and even pushing back against this federal beast. That is good..and long overdue.

Not to beat the old dead horse too much, but here we see another one, 4th post, joined today. The contest with respect to who can be the toughest continues.

Jim

I may be new to this forum but not to gun forums in general. I have to admit I don't see any sort of contest and you may consider that this is actually representative of the attitudes many share.

I've already defended myself in a previous post and while I don't wish to be looked at as a trouble maker by any means, I don't quite understand where this vision of a contest is comming from. I joined this forum because I had an idea and was curious if it could get any traction among the gun owners of Texas.

The attitude you are seeing is not something relegated to you hot blooded guys out to prove something. I have seen it in every age range and every walk of life from those who never considered the military, to combat veterans who consider it a continuation of their oath to defend the constitution.

My point being that you may be jumping to conclusions about the motivation behind these posts.

As it has been pointed out I am new to this forum and learning the ropes here. However with the current political climate it should not be suprising that there is a rise in new membership and many of these new members are a little fired up as are a large number of gun owners across this nation.

Andrew wrote:My question is, "Why are they here?" Are they really plastic carrying Texas CHL holders or are they attempting to cast the forum in a bad light? I can see MSM outlets leading off the news hour with "Texans Openly Plotting Sedition On Online Bulletin Board!" sheesh I got enough problems......

Yes, I do have a CHL, I am here for reasons stated in a previous post. My first post was the reason I joined this forum and someone was kind enough to direct me to this thread. You can also check my profile on the other forum. You've probably already seen the information posted in my previous response.

If the kind of talk going on in these forums actually resulted in 3:00 am jackbooted thug federal raids, then it seems like it really would be the time for armed insurrection. Geez.

Stephen wrote:

Andrew wrote:My question is, "Why are they here?" Are they really plastic carrying Texas CHL holders or are they attempting to cast the forum in a bad light? I can see MSM outlets leading off the news hour with "Texans Openly Plotting Sedition On Online Bulletin Board!" sheesh I got enough problems......

Yes, I do have a CHL, I am here for reasons stated in a previous post. My first post was the reason I joined this forum and someone was kind enough to direct me to this thread. You can also check my profile on the other forum. You've probably already seen the information posted in my previous response.

Welcome Stephen. You have friends here who will not bash you for your honest posts.

Anygunanywhere

Jumping Frog wrote:If the kind of talk going on in these forums actually resulted in 3:00 am jackbooted thug federal raids, then it seems like it really would be the time for armed insurrection. Geez.

This.

Anygunanywhere

Jumping Frog wrote:If the kind of talk going on in these forums actually resulted in 3:00 am jackbooted thug federal raids, then it seems like it really would be the time for armed insurrection. Geez.

Truth.