Texas Governor Greg Abbott on Obamas Gun Control orders

Replies

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,765 Senior Member
    I intended to follow up with more links, but I can't find any.

    I heard this yesterday on the radio, with the additional statement that the Governor intended to ask the legislature to pass measures to prevent Texas law enforcement from enforcing federal laws on gun control. I cannot find any sources for this, however. FoxNews is still on vacation, with all the 3rd stringers running things, and nobody else is likely to report on it until the DNC passes out the talking points, I reckon.
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,656 Senior Member
    The Fox News ticker that runs along the bottom of the screen reported that Texas is going to pass an open carry bill. I don't know the details, but I'm guessing it means that open carry will be legal. I don't know if a permit will be required or not.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,765 Senior Member
    It was passed last year - went into effect Jan. 1 - different issue.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    Why don't the States rights people open their big fat yap and tell the Federal Gummint that since firearms are a States issue, the Federal Gummint should NOT
    infringe it ?????
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    The response to state legislations like this is the Feds coming back with threats to cut Federal funds to the state. The 2 go back and forth until the people of the state wind up getting screwed one way or the other.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    When the states (like Texas) resist Presidential executive orders on gun control, I'm all for states' rights. When the states (like CA, MD, NY) resist the Supreme Court rulings in favor of gun rights, and persist in increasing local gun controls, then I'm against states' rights.

    It all depends on one's point of view.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    It all depends on one's point of view.

    The stupid voters who keep electing the gun grabbers deserve exactly what they're getting. They could vote with their feet and move to a free state if they really wanted to.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,948 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    When the states (like Texas) resist Presidential executive orders on gun control, I'm all for states' rights. When the states (like CA, MD, NY) resist the Supreme Court rulings in favor of gun rights, and persist in increasing local gun controls, then I'm against states' rights.

    It all depends on one's point of view.

    I'm never against states rights. If you don't like the way a certain state does business you have the option of moving to one that does things as you prefer.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,765 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    When the states (like Texas) resist Presidential executive orders on gun control, I'm all for states' rights. When the states (like CA, MD, NY) resist the Supreme Court rulings in favor of gun rights, and persist in increasing local gun controls, then I'm against states' rights.

    It all depends on one's point of view.


    Apples and oranges.

    The Supreme Court has a mandate to interpret the Constitution and enforce it, although they often screw it up. The President does not have the right to create law that contradicts the Constitution, nor is he supposed to have the right to enforce only the laws he likes. If he doesn't enforce the law in 'friendly' states, there's no reason for 'unfriendly' states to obey him, either.

    States rights consist of whatever their governor and legislature says they are, until the feds show them different, whether it be by political action, or military.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    The bottom line is simply this:> What ought to be, isn't always, what shouldn't be, sometimes is.

    The SCOTUS is just a heartbeat, or a retirement, away from changing its membership, and doing a one-eighty on all the recent pro-gun rulings. The situation as it exists now - the Court is with us, the Congress is with us, the Administration is against us, and the states are split, could quickly become the Court is against us, the Congress and the Administration are either with us or against us, depending on who wins in 2016, and the states are still split. Snake284 says not to worry, we can all just uproot and move as the winds of change blow this way or that.

    The variables being what they are, with nothing certain but death and taxes, and with the political and judicial pendulum swinging wildly, regarding states' rights, be careful what you wish for. The ugly truth is the relationship between the states and the federal government is, a century and a half after the Civil War, still undefined and still up to interpretation, and still up for grabs. The 17th Amendment, passed in 1913, undermined the founding fathers' perfect structure and combined with the 'supremacy clause,' the walls protecting the states from the central government came tumbling down.

    Unless you're on the road with Snake284, destination to be decided, or safely ensconced in Bisley's ideological ivory tower, surveying reality through rose colored glasses, your state, my state, anyone's state, can be for or against your gun rights, and that's a fact, and a very sad state of affairs.





    T R U M P
    Somebody's got to do it, and nobody else will.
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,202 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    When the states (like Texas) resist Presidential executive orders on gun control, I'm all for states' rights. When the states (like CA, MD, NY) resist the Supreme Court rulings in favor of gun rights, and persist in increasing local gun controls, then I'm against states' rights.

    It all depends on one's point of view.

    I'm so adamantly FOR the 10th Amendment it'd make your head spin.

    The Constitution enumerates only, and exactly, two things:

    1. Construction of our government
    2. Inalienable rights the government cannot trespass upon

    Some amendments just solidified established case law at the time that needed permanency like civil rights, universal suffrage, etc. Some, like Congress making their salaries is bullstuff and unconstitutional.

    If it ain't in the Constitution then they can't tell me jack sheet. They can piss up a rope in a headwind.

    The 10th is just as important to the people as it is states. The 2nd is explicit. That one belongs solely to the people, and only the people.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    I'm so adamantly FOR the 10th Amendment it'd make your head spin.

    The Constitution enumerates only, and exactly, two things:

    1. Construction of our government
    2. Inalienable rights the government cannot trespass upon

    Some amendments just solidified established case law at the time that needed permanency like civil rights, universal suffrage, etc. Some, like Congress making their salaries is bullstuff and unconstitutional.

    If it ain't in the Constitution then they can't tell me jack sheet. They can piss up a rope in a headwind.

    The 10th is just as important to the people as it is states. The 2nd is explicit. That one belongs solely to the people, and only the people.

    I agree with your post, the problem is, the 10th Amendment - indeed the entire Constitution - means ONLY what those empowered to 'interpret' it says it means, and it all only holds together when each branch of government jealously guards its powers and carries out its obligations. We have seen the Legislative branch almost out of business, completely bulldozed by an imperial president. We have seen many states virtually or partially ignore SCOTUS rulings and retain burdensome regulations on the gun rights of law-abiding and innocent citizens. Some states are doing their damndest to make those regulations even worse.

    In the last 7 years we have witnessed those adhering to an 'originalist' interpretation of the Constitution, (that's us), reduced to voices crying in the wilderness, dancing on the head of a pin, raising a tempest in a tea cup, whatever. Heck, the government doesn't even have a budget anymore. All appropriations are made as President Obama wants without any regard whatsoever for the actual funds collected or on hand. As long as we don't run out of paper and ink, it's all good. How will we ever be able to pay off the staggering deficits? That's easy, just print more money and hand it to the nation's creditors. As Alfred E. Neuman of Mad magazine would say, 'What - me worry?"

    And don't hand me nonsense about the power of the people - millions of conservatives are too self-important, self-centered, otherwise selfish, petulant, whining cry-babies to even bother voting if the only viable candidate that would oppose the progressive agenda isn't a perfect conservative '10.' Those loons would rather stay home, or even - believe it or not - vote a third party knowing full well that by doing so they guarantee the election of their worst possible enemy. And then they piss & moan for 4 or 8 years trumpeting their sanctified thoughts about the Constitution. Talk about stupid!

    Nature, and politics, abhors a vacuum. When death-wish conservatives don't vote, even if its only for the lesser of two evils, they get exactly the onerous government they richly deserve. When Congress rolls over on command, we get an imperial presidency. When the Supreme Court is taken only somewhat seriously, the situation gets even worse.

    The bottom line is nobody gives a darn what you, me, or anyone else thinks the Constitution says about this, that or the other. Unless the politicians we elect think exactly like us. That'll be the day.



    T R U M P
    Because Hillary means the end.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,765 Senior Member
    Damn, horselips...I can't argue with any of that....except the last line.

    If "T R U M P" is the answer, we're in deeper doo-doo than even I thought. I would almost rather have a military coupe, and trust the generals to restore the republic, than to hang my hopes on Trump's character, or beneficence, or whatever he would need to have to make me trust him.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Damn, horselips...I can't argue with any of that....except the last line.

    If "T R U M P" is the answer, we're in deeper doo-doo than even I thought. I would almost rather have a military coupe, and trust the generals to restore the republic, than to hang my hopes on Trump's character, or beneficence, or whatever he would need to have to make me trust him.

    Let's see how the campaign plays out. We may find him trustworthy enough by then. Cross your fingers.
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    The problem starts with the people that believe that an entity called "The State"
    Has rights !

    It serves only to water down the concept of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, an individual has rights, a Government has powers, not rights, imminent domain is an example of a power, the Government may have the power to take your land, however, the Government does not have the right to do so.

    The individual has a right to aquire, keep and bear arms, the Government uses its power to infringe on that right, the Government does NOT have the right to keep the law abiding individual from aquiring and keeping and bearing arms.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    If we can't have a military coupe, could we maybe have a military sedan with four doors?
    :uhm:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,240 Senior Member
    Military convertible?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    Military convertible?

    If there is lead flying I'd prefer NOT having a drop top ... a 4 door APV would be more to my liking :jester:
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.