Texas’ Second Amendment Preservation Act

america-revolution-statue-of-liberty1

UPDATE: There is a provision in this bill that we believe effectively invalidates all its noble rhetoric.  Sec 46.16 (c)(4) provides a defense against prosecution. Surely all federal agents will argue that what they are doing is constitutional.  We Texans’ contributor Dwayne Stovall makes the following observation:

Texas State Representative John Otto (District 18) filed H.B. 553, the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” on January 17th.   “The Constitution was designed for times like these—when emotions run high and justice demands a response. But our Founders saw the wisdom in preserving our natural right of self-preservation and self-defense, and provided that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. My bill is designed to ensure that for Texans, at least, that will remain true.” ~ State Representative John Otto

The underlying problem is that he is focused on the wrong Constitution, but he is not alone.  Many, if not all representatives from Texas as well as other States, are actually hurting the founding principles of Federalism, Republicanism and limited government [when they introduce this sort of legislation]; not to mention State Sovereignty and individual liberty.  And although this bill, along with numerous other similar bills, has good intentions, it mistakenly gives sanction to what is known as the Incorporation Doctrine.

Representative Otto’s bill, perhaps unknowingly, supports extending the federal Bill of Rights to the States, which is simply wrong and can only end badly.  The language of this bill, by arguing in favor of applying the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd amendment to the States, backhandedly supports Incorporation; the Federal Government’s position that it can extend the Bill of Rights to the States and create national laws affecting every State on issues such as prayer in schools, or having the Ten Commandments displayed in a State courthouse.  This truly undermines Federalism and argues in favor of Nationalism.  In simple terms; to argue the right to keep and bear arms, the Texas Constitution is as far as you need to go.

Here are few things we all need to know about gun control, State Constitutions, and the Bill of Rights.

1. The Constitution of the United States is a compact developed and ratified by the people of the several States to create a new Federal Government. It delegates strict, limited, and enumerated powers to the Federal Government, reserving ALL powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, to the States respectively, or to the people.

2. The Bill of Rights is a restriction on the Federal Government –ONLY– and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that understanding for over 130 years up until the 20th century, when the litany of progressive judges started to take over the judiciary.

3. States can regulate guns; the Federal Government cannot.   If you were indoctrinated in the public school system, this will sound crazy, but it is true.

State Constitutions such as New York’s have no clause protecting the citizens of that State’s right to keep and bear arms; none.  And in States that do protect the right to keep and bear arms, they still control regulation.  Texas is a good example.  The Texas Constitution reads:

Art. 1 Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

4. If you believe that the Federal Government has the power to legislate gun control, prayer, or any other part of the Bill of Rights, across all 50 States, regardless of that State’s wishes, you are a supporter of the Incorporation Doctrine.

5. If you believe that the United States Constitution delegates enumerated and limited powers to the Federal Government and the individual States are sovereign and retain ALL remaining powers, you are an originalist, and we should all be originalists.

ORIGINAL POST:

This post was written by our friends over at The Tenth Amendment Center

Introduced in Texas [this week], House Bill 553, is titled “The Second Amendment Preservation Act.”

The bill reaffirms the Second Amendment, as intended, and would nullify potentially anything from the federal government that contravenes in the State of Texas. It reads, in part:

…all federal acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, and rules or regulations of all kinds with the purpose, intent, or effect of confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore, infringes upon Texans’ right to bear arms in direct violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and therefore, any such law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution, is not authorized by the Constitution, and thus, is not the supreme law of the land, and consequently, is invalid in this State and shall be further considered null and void and of no effect in this State.

The bill goes further than just affirmation of the Second Amendment. It requires compliance by by state and federal agents:

A person who is a public servant commits an offense if the person, while acting under color of the person’s office or employment, intentionally enforces or attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.

The legislation specifies that the new law would apply not just to state employees, but federal ones as well.

”Public servant,” includes an officer, employee, or agent of the United States; a branch, department, or agency of the United States; another person acting under a contract with a branch, department, or agency of the United States to provide a law enforcement or security service; or any other person acting under color of federal law.

HB553 also provides for criminal penalties for a violation of the 2nd Amendment in the State of Texas

An offense under Subsection (b) is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed one year, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both the confinement and the fine.

ACTION ITEMS

Texans can join the 2nd Amendment Preservation group to support this bill on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/2ndAmendmentTexas/

If you have concerns about the federal government banning firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition and would like to see this bill assigned to a committee and be up for debate on the house floor, please contact your Representative at this link.

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Be Heard! Leave your comments below and share this post

Comments

  • Heather MacFarlane

    God Bless Texas!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Zuniga/1389494145 David Zuniga

    28 USC 1441 is Congress’ get-out-of-jail free card, in any case that can be construed a federal question (like violating the 2nd Amendment) or show federal diversity jurisdiction (plaintiffs or victims from more than one state).

    So federal officer Jack Jackboot comes to enforce Obama’s gun-grab on a Texan.  The Texas Rangers (or County Sheriff) comes to grab Mr. Jackboot, enforcing the new Texas law (and only a misdemeanor, too).  Jackboot files a Removal Jurisdiction request under Section 1441 with the federal magistrate, and he’s out in a few hours.

    Nullification actions by State legislatures are paper tigers.  Thomas Jefferson liked the idea, but James Madison — Father of the Constitution — preferred interposition action instead.  That’s what the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine (TM) is, allowing We The People to criminally indict the BIG fish (members of Congress) on STATE criminal charges that harmonize with their violations of the US Constitution.

    Purely intrastate (within one state, no federal question) actions can’t be stolen by Congress’ lackeys, the federal courts.  Until We The People begin to do OUR duty, we should not expect politicians in our statehouses to suddenly do theirs, after feeding from the federal dog dish for 150 years.

    See the video at AmericaAgainNow (dot com), and read the FAQs.  Yes, God has blessed Texas with many exciting patriot organizations like We Texans, Infowars, the Glenn Beck Show, AmericaAgain! and many more.  But ALL of We The People — all Americans — need to pull together AS ONE…not let them break us up like Lincoln did.

    Watch the video, and JOIN AmericaAgain!. We’re finished talking; this year, we’re taking ACTION.  

  • Cure4stupid

    Does anyone know when this bill is coming up for vote?

    • http://wetexans.com We Texans

       This bill has not even been assigned to a committee yet (likely because the committee members themselves have not yet been assigned) and no votes are taken (except for emergency items as declared by the Governor) before the 60th day of the session which is Friday, March 8th.

  • Sonice

    Apparently you folks think the Constitution ends with the 10th Amendment, the 14th Amendment was a game changer for the way the Constitution was interpreted and for the better.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dwayne-Stovall/100001300366148 Dwayne Stovall

      Dear Sonice,

      What you fail to understand is that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 for a specific purpose and was never interpreted to apply or “incorporate” against the States all the protections of the Bill of Rights until the 20th century.

      The 14th amendment was created to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and keep future congresses from overturning the act, thereby removing basic rights of citizenship to newly freed slaves. As a result, the provisions of the Civil Rights Act govern the meaning of phrases like“privileges and immunities” and “due process.”

      As defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the “privileges and immunities” included the right to enter into contracts, own property, inherit property, travel freely and access to the courts, and the right to “due process” basically guaranteed procedural fairness for all people.

      US Senator Howard Jay Graham, who helped draft the 14thamendment and was an advocate of an abolitionist reading said, “Virtually every speech in the debates on the amendment – Republican and Democrat alike – said or agreed that the amendment was designed to embody or incorporate the Civil Rights Act.”

      The SCOTUS even supported this understanding in the Slaughterhouse case of 1873:

      “Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government? And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?
      All this and more must follow if the proposition of the plaintiffs in error be sound…. [T]he effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character….
      We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.”

      The usurpation of the 14th amendment did not begin until over a half century later, and the unconstitutional Incorporation Doctrine that has developed out of these twisted rulings has been the primary mechanism by which the Federal Government has destroyed States rights and sovereignty.

      It was wrong then, it is wrong today, and it is time the States stood up for the truth.

      Sincerely,

      Dwayne Stovall

  • http://twitter.com/10thComm Mike Maharrey

    To say the proposed bill somehow advances the incorporation doctrine indicates a misunderstanding of the legislation itself. The bill would simply prohibit state agents from  enforcing a federal law violating the Second Amendment. It does not limit the power of the Texas legislature to legislate firearms within the scope of the Texas constitution. It does not extend the Second Amendment to the state level. It does interpose Texas officials between the federal government and the people of Texas if the feds overstep their authority and try to enforce a FEDERAL firearms act.

    Sec 46.16 (c)(4) does provide a defense against prosecution. But a federal agent would have to prove he or she was acting constitutionally in a Texas state court. It would be up to the jury of Texans to determine if the agent was indeed within her or his constitutional powers. It’s no different than saying a conceal carry permit is a defense against being charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon. The person charged still must prove he had a valid license at the time of the arrest. This clause certainly doesn’t “invalidate” the bill.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dwayne-Stovall/100001300366148 Dwayne Stovall

      Mike, the language of the bill appears to contradict itself.  I’ll send you an email.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Dwayne-Stovall/100001300366148 Dwayne Stovall

      I am not arguing that these “push back” bills are not worth supporting. They are definitely a step in the right direction.  What concerns me is the apparent ho-hum acceptance that this will surely be litigated in the federal judiciary and that the ultimate arbiter will be the SCOTUS, even though the constitution grants no such power to the Federal in this area. It all seems to validate the notion of Incorporation simply by allowing the federal to participate. As far as I can tell, none of the bills offered contain language that explicitly denies federal involvement.  If there was a bill that said, and I’m oversimplifying, “anyone providing information or assistance in anyway to the
      federal in association with this legislation will go to jail”, it could be viewed as a true act of nullification.  Otherwise, I think they will mostly lead to more fodder for the masses while reinforcing the idea that the SCOTUS is the last word on every issue regardless.

  • Darrel

    To argue that the  state has the right to restrict us regarding our second amendment protection forces the question does the state have the same right to limit our free speech or right to choose which religion we want to practice, or our protection from housing troops in time of peace, or self incrimination in court? When a state places limitations on how we may carry a weapon on our person, and demands that we must ask their permission before we do, the right ceases to be a right and is then a privilege at the discretion of the state. I don’t believe any of us think the state has the right to limit our other rights confirmed by the Bill of Rights, so why should the second be singles out?

  • http://www.facebook.com/muscleheadbob Robert Germanovich

    If a job comes up in Texas utilizing my skills and not forcing me to pray to a non-existing deity, I’ll load up the car and get there as fast as 300hp will take me.