The ATF recently published an open letter concerning HB957, which claims to exempt silencers that are manufactured in Texas, and which remain in Texas, from Federal firearms laws and regulations, including the federal registration requirements. However, because HB957 directly conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes HB957
Yet states can legalize drugs which violate federal laws and nada nothing happens. The feds are just ignoring these states. Where's the federal law supersedes your state laws on drugs. Talking about the hypocrisy. Does not the 10th admendment apply anymore.
Texas suppressor law overrides by ATF
-
Firemedic2000
- Posts: 1473
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:01 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay
Texas suppressor law overrides by ATF
RANGER AIRBORNE, BLACK TEAM, FIREMEDIC, NRA BENEFACTOR
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of POLITICAL LEADERS
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of POLITICAL LEADERS
-
dammitgriff
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:06 am
I wish Texas would use the 10th Amendment as a nail and hammer it right into Uncle Sam’s forehead.
—Griff
—Griff
The Feds COULD enforce such drug laws if they so chose, but often for political reasons do not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._RaichFiremedic2000 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:52 pm The ATF recently published an open letter concerning HB957, which claims to exempt silencers that are manufactured in Texas, and which remain in Texas, from Federal firearms laws and regulations, including the federal registration requirements. However, because HB957 directly conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes HB957
Yet states can legalize drugs which violate federal laws and nada nothing happens. The feds are just ignoring these states. Where's the federal law supersedes your state laws on drugs. Talking about the hypocrisy. Does not the 10th admendment apply anymore.
Two "conservatives" went along this disgrace. Kennedy, no surprise--but for Scalia it was his greatest disgrace.
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.”
Firemedic2000 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 6:52 pm The ATF recently published an open letter concerning HB957, which claims to exempt silencers that are manufactured in Texas, and which remain in Texas, from Federal firearms laws and regulations, including the federal registration requirements. However, because HB957 directly conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes HB957
ATF: "Because HB957 directly conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes HB957."
Texas: "Because federal firearms laws and regulations directly conflict with the Second and Tenth Amendments, the Constitution supersedes federal firearms laws and regulations. Your move."
ATF: "Uhh . . . we'll get back to you."
I used to travel much years ago,,,love Texas. Hope things don’t change there with all the CaliforniaConstitutionFornicaters movin there. Mav
As an aside note, great common sense laws but you better follow the law and don’t ever piss off a Constable.
As an aside note, great common sense laws but you better follow the law and don’t ever piss off a Constable.
-
Firemedic2000
- Posts: 1473
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:01 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay
A little long but very Interesting read on the 10th admendment
The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.
In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941). No law that would have been constitutional before the Tenth Amendment was ratified becomes unconstitutional simply because the Tenth Amendment exists. The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.
Nonetheless, beginning in 1976, a line of cases has emerged that seems to give substantive constitutional content to the Tenth Amendment. In 1986, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that a city was required to comply with federal labor laws, and that state sovereignty interests should be protected by the participation of states in the national political process, rather than by judicially-enforced principles of federalism. However, while Garcia has never been explicitly overruled, in subsequent cases the Court has indeed found judicially-enforceable limits on the power of the federal government to regulate states (and their political subdivisions) directly. So it is now meaningful to speak of “Tenth Amendment doctrine.” Those cases all involve action by the federal government that in some way regulates or commands state governments, such as by telling states what policies they must adopt, New York v. United States (1992), forcing state or local executive officials to implement federal laws, Printz v. United States (1997), or conditioning the states’ acceptance of federal money on compliance with certain conditions, South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment has not been invoked by the Court to protect individual citizens against the exercise of federal power.
Whether the Tenth Amendment actually is, or ought to be, serving as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism is a matter of great controversy, both on and off the Court. Do these “Tenth Amendment” cases really involve the Tenth Amendment, or do they simply interpret (or perhaps misinterpret) specific grants of federal power in light of certain principles codified in the Tenth Amendment, but present in the Constitution’s structure and design even before the Bill of Rights was ratified?
The Tenth Amendment’s simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government. It remains a government of limited and enumerated powers, so that the first question involving an exercise of federal power is not whether it violates someone’s rights, but whether it exceeds the national government’s enumerated powers.
In this sense, the Tenth Amendment is “but a truism.” United States v. Darby (1941). No law that would have been constitutional before the Tenth Amendment was ratified becomes unconstitutional simply because the Tenth Amendment exists. The only question posed by the Tenth Amendment is whether a claimed federal power was actually delegated to the national government by the Constitution, and that question is answered by studying the enumerated powers, not by studying the Tenth Amendment. That was the understanding of the Supreme Court for nearly two centuries.
Nonetheless, beginning in 1976, a line of cases has emerged that seems to give substantive constitutional content to the Tenth Amendment. In 1986, in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court held that a city was required to comply with federal labor laws, and that state sovereignty interests should be protected by the participation of states in the national political process, rather than by judicially-enforced principles of federalism. However, while Garcia has never been explicitly overruled, in subsequent cases the Court has indeed found judicially-enforceable limits on the power of the federal government to regulate states (and their political subdivisions) directly. So it is now meaningful to speak of “Tenth Amendment doctrine.” Those cases all involve action by the federal government that in some way regulates or commands state governments, such as by telling states what policies they must adopt, New York v. United States (1992), forcing state or local executive officials to implement federal laws, Printz v. United States (1997), or conditioning the states’ acceptance of federal money on compliance with certain conditions, South Dakota v. Dole (1987). Interestingly, the Tenth Amendment has not been invoked by the Court to protect individual citizens against the exercise of federal power.
Whether the Tenth Amendment actually is, or ought to be, serving as an independent source of constitutional principles of federalism is a matter of great controversy, both on and off the Court. Do these “Tenth Amendment” cases really involve the Tenth Amendment, or do they simply interpret (or perhaps misinterpret) specific grants of federal power in light of certain principles codified in the Tenth Amendment, but present in the Constitution’s structure and design even before the Bill of Rights was ratified?
RANGER AIRBORNE, BLACK TEAM, FIREMEDIC, NRA BENEFACTOR
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of POLITICAL LEADERS
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of POLITICAL LEADERS
-
Firemedic2000
- Posts: 1473
- Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:01 pm
- Location: Tampa Bay
You see the federal government has only as much power over states as the states allow them to have. The federal government will violate the 10th admendment and keep doing so as long as the states say or do nothing.
RANGER AIRBORNE, BLACK TEAM, FIREMEDIC, NRA BENEFACTOR
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of POLITICAL LEADERS
In the Government's/Elitist eye's I'm a Terrorist for believing in the Constitution and taking an oath to defend it instead of POLITICAL LEADERS
-
dammitgriff
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:06 am
See post #2.