The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
Bring 'em on. We're not giving up any more of our rights to these criminals and traitors.Rex B wrote:this would give obama a reason to start enlisting his brown shirt corps
baldeagle wrote:Bring 'em on. We're not giving up any more of our rights to these criminals and traitors.Rex B wrote:this would give obama a reason to start enlisting his brown shirt corps
It would certainly disrupt their normal activities, would it not? It might even cause some of them to think about what they're doing and refuse to do it any longer. They could even use the excuse that they're tired of being constantly arrested and don't want to do it any more.gigag04 wrote:As far as criminilizing Feds, though unconstitutional...would it still be a "beat the rap not the ride" situation?
As example, ATF agents et al won't be ultimately convicted, but may get arrested to prove the point?
Thisbaldeagle wrote:It would certainly disrupt their normal activities, would it not? It might even cause some of them to think about what they're doing and refuse to do it any longer. They could even use the excuse that they're tired of being constantly arrested and don't want to do it any more.gigag04 wrote:As far as criminilizing Feds, though unconstitutional...would it still be a "beat the rap not the ride" situation?
As example, ATF agents et al won't be ultimately convicted, but may get arrested to prove the point?
I also believe that those who are in the more "Constitutional Camp" can use this as an argument to not interfere. I firmly believe that there are many who are pro-second amendment folks and watch with horror what we are watching with horror.gigag04 wrote:As far as criminilizing Feds, though unconstitutional...would it still be a "beat the rap not the ride" situation?
As example, ATF agents et al won't be ultimately convicted, but may get arrested to prove the point?
Agreed. You might arrest the first Fed. The second arrest probably won't go real well. I don't see a local LEO pulling a gun on a Fed for enforcing federal law. In the escalation game we would all lose in that fight.BHill wrote:gigag04 wrote:As far as criminilizing Feds, though unconstitutional...would it still be a "beat the rap not the ride" situation?
As example, ATF agents et al won't be ultimately convicted, but may get arrested to prove the point?
I am not law enforcement however I am curious what happens when the Fed says " you are not arresting me"? How far does it escalate?
Could be a scary game of flinch.
My one concern with this bill is it being completely struck down. Let's say that a local/state LEO does arrest a Fed. He's booked, etc. Goes to trial. Found guilty & sentenced. Appeals, and it goes to Federal Court. The Federal Court overturns the law (can Feds strike down state laws?). Now we've lost both the (unConstitutional) "arrest the feds" provision AND the "punish our own for helping the feds" provision.goose wrote:Agreed. You might arrest the first Fed. The second arrest probably won't go real well. I don't see a local LEO pulling a gun on a Fed for enforcing federal law. In the escalation game we would all lose in that fight.
I think that this would simply go the way of the wacky weed laws in CO, WA, etc. State LEOs simply enforce state law. No help rendered to Feds, no harm rendered to Feds.
If you're going to go the route of ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, you don't stop just because some court told you to. Once committed, you continue until they get the message.RottenApple wrote:My one concern with this bill is it being completely struck down. Let's say that a local/state LEO does arrest a Fed. He's booked, etc. Goes to trial. Found guilty & sentenced. Appeals, and it goes to Federal Court. The Federal Court overturns the law (can Feds strike down state laws?). Now we've lost both the (unConstitutional) "arrest the feds" provision AND the "punish our own for helping the feds" provision.goose wrote:Agreed. You might arrest the first Fed. The second arrest probably won't go real well. I don't see a local LEO pulling a gun on a Fed for enforcing federal law. In the escalation game we would all lose in that fight.
I think that this would simply go the way of the wacky weed laws in CO, WA, etc. State LEOs simply enforce state law. No help rendered to Feds, no harm rendered to Feds.
If we've just got to have the "arrest the feds" part, then we should have separate bills to accomplish both goals.
I'm not saying that you're ideologically wrong but are you asking the local LEOs to essentially engage in the beginnings of a civil war? I honestly have no clue but I bet after the first arrest, Feds start going out in twos, then threes, then fours. Local LEOs, by and large, won't have that luxury. I'd still put my money on it going the way of Mary Jane laws. If this is turning into a secession issue, so be it. Different discussion. I just don't see it going that way.baldeagle wrote:If you're going to go the route of ignoring unconstitutional federal laws, you don't stop just because some court told you to. Once committed, you continue until they get the message.RottenApple wrote:My one concern with this bill is it being completely struck down. Let's say that a local/state LEO does arrest a Fed. He's booked, etc. Goes to trial. Found guilty & sentenced. Appeals, and it goes to Federal Court. The Federal Court overturns the law (can Feds strike down state laws?). Now we've lost both the (unConstitutional) "arrest the feds" provision AND the "punish our own for helping the feds" provision.goose wrote:Agreed. You might arrest the first Fed. The second arrest probably won't go real well. I don't see a local LEO pulling a gun on a Fed for enforcing federal law. In the escalation game we would all lose in that fight.
I think that this would simply go the way of the wacky weed laws in CO, WA, etc. State LEOs simply enforce state law. No help rendered to Feds, no harm rendered to Feds.
If we've just got to have the "arrest the feds" part, then we should have separate bills to accomplish both goals.
This issue is covered in the proposed law. The legal term is "Severability"RottenApple wrote:My one concern with this bill is it being completely struck down.
If we've just got to have the "arrest the feds" part, then we should have separate bills to accomplish both goals.
SECTION 5. Every provision in this Act and every
application of the provisions in this Act are severable from each
other as a matter of state law. If any application of any provision
in this Act to any person or group of persons or circumstances is
found by a court to be invalid, the remainder of this Act and the
application of the Act's provisions to all other persons and
circumstances may not be affected. All constitutionally valid
applications of this Act shall be severed from any applications
that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in
force, because it is the legislature's intent and priority that the
valid applications be allowed to stand alone. Even if a reviewing
court finds a provision of this Act invalid in a large or
substantial fraction of relevant cases, the remaining valid
applications shall be severed and allowed to remain in force.
Thanks, Roy. I missed that part. Next time I'll fullyRoyGBiv wrote:This issue is covered in the proposed law. The legal term is "Severability"RottenApple wrote:My one concern with this bill is it being completely struck down.
If we've just got to have the "arrest the feds" part, then we should have separate bills to accomplish both goals.
Here's the section from HB553
SECTION 5. Every provision in this Act and every
application of the provisions in this Act are severable from each
other as a matter of state law. If any application of any provision
in this Act to any person or group of persons or circumstances is
found by a court to be invalid, the remainder of this Act and the
application of the Act's provisions to all other persons and
circumstances may not be affected. All constitutionally valid
applications of this Act shall be severed from any applications
that a court finds to be invalid, leaving the valid applications in
force, because it is the legislature's intent and priority that the
valid applications be allowed to stand alone. Even if a reviewing
court finds a provision of this Act invalid in a large or
substantial fraction of relevant cases, the remaining valid
applications shall be severed and allowed to remain in force.
.According to letters we've seen from sheriffs around the country, they plan on being there.Ziran wrote:I am not expecting local/state law enforcement to shoot it out with any feds. Just do not render them any assistance and do not work with them. And above all when/if feds do try to come and get my guns don't be there.
Good enough for me.