TexasCHLforum.com

Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.

I'm thrilled to see that this bill employs a method which will avoid a constitutional conflict, but still achieve most of our goals. This is great news, I look forward to doing whatever lobbying is needed to help it pass.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this .

I agree MOST cops will be happy to NOT enforce unConstitutional Federal "laws". However, doesn't this just put the cops in a pickle if their chief says "go do this (help the Feds)?" I could see chiefs of police in Houston, Austin, Dallas not being willing to tell the FEds "no" (I'm just making broad assumptions, other than the Austin chief and his past actions - I don't know the particular personal proclivities of the Houston or Dallas chiefs).

A-R wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this .

I agree MOST cops will be happy to NOT enforce unConstitutional Federal "laws". However, doesn't this just put the cops in a pickle if their chief says "go do this (help the Feds)?" I could see chiefs of police in Houston, Austin, Dallas not being willing to tell the FEds "no" (I'm just making broad assumptions, other than the Austin chief and his past actions - I don't know the particular personal proclivities of the Houston or Dallas chiefs).

If it is against Texas law then the chiefs are guilty of a crime?

I see this as an opportunity for some undercover stings to nail the unscrupulous higher ups who seek to undermine our constitutionally enumerated freedom!

Anygunanywhere

A-R wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this .

I agree MOST cops will be happy to NOT enforce unConstitutional Federal "laws". However, doesn't this just put the cops in a pickle if their chief says "go do this (help the Feds)?" I could see chiefs of police in Houston, Austin, Dallas not being willing to tell the FEds "no" (I'm just making broad assumptions, other than the Austin chief and his past actions - I don't know the particular personal proclivities of the Houston or Dallas chiefs).

No, officers cannot obey an order to do an illegal act. Plus, any ranking officer who orders one of their subordinates to violate the statute would also be in violation. I agree that some chiefs may want to aid the feds, but few if any will risk prosecution.

Chas.

I like this. It fits nicely with the administrations efforts to get Arizona law enforcement to stop enforcing federal immigration law. How can the Feds defend telling local law enforcement that you must enforce Federal law X, but not Federal law Y?

SlickTX wrote:I like this. It fits nicely with the administrations efforts to get Arizona law enforcement to stop enforcing federal immigration law. How can the Feds defend telling local law enforcement that you must enforce Federal law X, but not Federal law Y?

Whoa, there. We don't need any of your highfalutin logic.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise...

Ewe...interesting. That is definitely a nice spin on the bill here in Texas. It will be interesting to see the outcome of some of these bills and whether they pass or not.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.

Is there a link to more information about this creative approach?

I love this approach. It's a model for the other states to follow. Well done!

SlickTX wrote:I like this. It fits nicely with the administrations efforts to get Arizona law enforcement to stop enforcing federal immigration law. How can the Feds defend telling local law enforcement that you must enforce Federal law X, but not Federal law Y?

That is exactly what I was talking with my dad about yesterday. They want the stat's help with this, but not that? I don't think so. Looks like a whole bunch of states are also having a problem with that logic in addition to the constitutional issue.

JALLEN wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Otto's HB553 takes a unique approach to the issue of enforcement of certain federal laws, regulations and presidential executive orders (collectively referred to as "federal provisions"). Unlike many bills filed and/or passed around the country, HB553 creates an offense for any Texas peace officer enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of such federal provisions. The Bill also creates a separate offense for federal agents doing likewise, but those provisions are clearly unconstitutional and will not be enforceable.

If HB553 passes, Texas peace officers will have every reason to refuse to participate in the enforcement of these federal provisions. It's important to note that merely allowing a federal officer to use a Texas peace officer's office, telephone, computer, or city map would expose the Texas officer to criminal prosecution. Most COPS I know would love to see this pass and would be even happier to tell a federal agent "sorry, I can't help you." Undoubtedly, the Texas COP's face would look something like this .

I must admit that I've come full circle on the issue of passing legislation that purports to invalidate federal laws and/or creating offenses for federal agents enforcing federal provisions. Those laws are unconstitutional without question, but a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. I think it is important that we educate Texans on the fact that they are not going to be enforceable so they do not engage in acts that violate federal law and will land them in a federal prison.

Chas.

Is there a link to more information about this creative approach?

There's a link to the bill in the Bill Status Report.

Chas.

Chas,

When I first read about HB553 and the WY bill, I thought that was silly... but as you, I've also come to understand that it's about making a statement. I have contacted Dan Huberty, my state representative, asking that he supports this bill.

Now THIS is the EXACT sort of thing that I was hoping for...doesn't "invalidate" Federal law, it just keeps them from getting any help from the law enforcement resources of this state or its political subdivisions...and good luck fully enforcing the thing with ONLY Federal resources. I LIKE IT, A LOT!

C-dub wrote:

SlickTX wrote:I like this. It fits nicely with the administrations efforts to get Arizona law enforcement to stop enforcing federal immigration law. How can the Feds defend telling local law enforcement that you must enforce Federal law X, but not Federal law Y?

That is exactly what I was talking with my dad about yesterday. They want the stat's help with this, but not that? I don't think so. Looks like a whole bunch of states are also having a problem with that logic in addition to the constitutional issue.

It's actually a bit stronger and clearer than you stated. In the Arizona immigration case, the administration makes the claim that states MAY NOT enforce federal law.