Hurley's Gold

Second or Tenth Amendment, which one?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BurkGlocker

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 24, 2009
    409
    1
    Burkburnett, TX
    I know that I keep hearing about and also preaching about the Second Amendment, but in conversation with my dad the other day, he tells me I should be more worried about defending the Tenth Amendment. After re-reading it 10 years after the first time, I really think that there is some salt that needs to be thrown in the US government's wounds. Why doesnt Texas envoke its Tenth Amendment rights? There are so many other states that have basically told the US government to kiss their asses, but Texas is still sitting on their hands. Is it Perry? or some other person in our legislative that is hindering Texas' progress as a state, or even possibly a Republic.

    Let me hear it guys and gals... What is y'alls' opinion?

    Brad
    Lynx Defense
     

    Army 1911

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 17, 2008
    6,536
    96
    Dallas Texas or so
    The 10th is the one that preserves States Rights. Unfortunately, most states would rather suck on the federal teat than preserve their rights or those of their citizens.

    The feds get away with sticking their noses into things via the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution. It is weird, a company that sells its product only in Texas, but buys its raw materials from out of state is totally subject to the interstate commerce even though the interstate part ended with the purchase of the raw materials.

    Several states have invoked the 10th on the subject of firearms made and sold in their state. The Feds have said they don't care and will enforce the fed laws anyhow.

    Their are so many areas that the feds have snuck into, local public education, health care, housing, environment, etc. Yet no one complains or rather stands up and says NO.
     

    TexasR.N.

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 12, 2009
    655
    21
    Rampart
    Perry has brought this up (10th ammendment) when it came to the stimulus money and the strings attached to it.

    But I agree with the poster prior to me. States / residents are more concerned about what the government can do / provide for them, than what they can do for themselves.

    Montana has threatened to secede if their rights to gun ownership are infringed upon. Apparently, when they joined the union, gun ownership was part of the agreement. It will be interesting to see what direction they (Montana), Vermont, & New Hampshire go in concerning gun laws.

    Sadly, I think our great state is full of hot air when it comes to the 10th Ammendment. Even we have a state government and too many citizens that have come to depend on the feds. Sure Perry tosses out the "Maybe Texas will secede" line, but hey there is an up coming election cycle........

    Craig
     

    radioflyer

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 21, 2009
    416
    11
    They are like teenage boys at the prom. Say and do anything you can to get what you want.

    don't forget your state government will sell you out just as fast as your federal government... perhaps eeveen faster since states can't print their own $$$. :banghead:
     

    Jeff B

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 28, 2008
    337
    1
    Flower Mound, TX
    I believe I heard (on Beck's radio progarm) that some 23 states have resolutions of some form in motion which are designed to re-inforce their beleif in the 10th Amendment and the division of powers. Depending on what form the "Health Care Reform" takes, you may see certain states reject the legislations jurisdiction under 10th Amendment grounds.

    Jeff B.
     

    Hawghauler

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 5, 2009
    638
    21
    Idaho
    But who would feed all the poor precious undocumented laborers? "said with nazally whining, pathetic, hand wringing pleading"
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    Looks like Montana is going to take their case regarding the sale of ammunition and guns within their borders not being subject to federal law, and it's heading toward the Supreme Court. ATF was the first federal agency to step in and say no way to this state's rights issue. Does anyone in government ever read the Constitution?
     

    Pappy

    Resident Septuagenarian
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 29, 2008
    319
    1
    Texas
    And as far as Texas succeeding from the Union, that bit of paper was tore up after the Civil War...
     

    atticus

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 16, 2008
    139
    1
    West Texas
    Unfortunately, under Supreme Court caselaw, the 10th amendment doesn't mean what it seems to say with a plain reading. Occasionally a 10th amendment case will pop up, giving a little life to an otherwise dead corpse. Chalk it up to about a century of big government leaning supreme court rulings. It would take a supreme court willing to reverse itself on a long line of established jurisprudence. If we had a few Scalia types on the court it might happen. With our current chief executive, it's not likely that we'll get any more justices like Scalia any time soon. Unfortunately. The founding fathers would be shocked by a number of things in our modern constitutional law landscape, including the rape of the 10th amendment.
     

    30+GSXR

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2008
    488
    1
    unfortunately, under supreme court caselaw, the 10th amendment doesn't mean what it seems to say with a plain reading. Occasionally a 10th amendment case will pop up, giving a little life to an otherwise dead corpse. Chalk it up to about a century of big government leaning supreme court rulings. It would take a supreme court willing to reverse itself on a long line of established jurisprudence. If we had a few scalia types on the court it might happen. With our current chief executive, it's not likely that we'll get any more justices like scalia any time soon. Unfortunately. The founding fathers would be shocked by a number of things in our modern constitutional law landscape, including the rape of the 10th amendment.


    amen
     

    TexasT

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 20, 2009
    37
    1
    NE Texas
    THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION


    ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

    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.

    States rights vs federal govt.
     

    TexasRoadDawg

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 29, 2009
    57
    1
    Stuck in n.y.
    Gov. Perry has signed a resolution reaffirming 10th Amendment rights. But I think we all know him well enough to know that his greatest asset in office is his ability to stroke the Texas ego. I'm still not voting for Sen. Hutchison though.

    The states have allowed themselves to be run over by the feds for so long that at this point I think its just too little too late. As was said earlier, it would take major reversals from the Supreme Court on decades of legal precedents. Not to mention the unelected bureaucrats in places like the ATF who don't give a **insert your own expletive here** about the Constitution. I think it would take a significant number of states taking some pretty drastic measures to make any significant progress.
     

    wrtanker

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2009
    215
    11
    Ft. Worth
    The last time there was a ruckus about the rights of the states versus the rights of the fed it ended in the Civil War. Of course, back then we were a younger, more self-reliant nation with people willing to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Such a fuss now would endanger too many people's "entitlements" from the Fed so they won't yell too loud. I just hate to see the direction this is going....
     

    TrailDust

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 29, 2009
    2,945
    21
    Kalifornication
    The last time there was a ruckus about the rights of the states versus the rights of the fed it ended in the Civil War. Of course, back then we were a younger, more self-reliant nation with people willing to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Such a fuss now would endanger too many people's "entitlements" from the Fed so they won't yell too loud. I just hate to see the direction this is going....

    I'd have to agree with that. A government pension is a difficult thing to walk away from. On top of that, modern life is so comfortable that it's all but impossible to upset the apple cart for people, as opposed to the 1800s when people had little or nothing, life was very hard, and committing to secession was much easier. IMO.
     

    Gutshot

    Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 10, 2009
    57
    1
    Justin, Texas
    That is why I'm voting for Debra Medina for govenor. It is becoming a popular topic for people talking about secession. I think people in Texas are scared of the way the coutry is heading and they don't want to follow.

    gutshot
     
    Top Bottom