I don’t like strategy of individual states introducing, perhaps passing, legislation codifying a crime to enforce federal laws. The rage right now is, of course, those laws referring to the enforcement of any federal ban or restriction on gun ownership.
AUSTIN, Texas – Under a measure advancing in the Texas Capitol, local police officers could be convicted of a crime for enforcing any new federal gun control laws.
Rep. Steve Toth, a newly elected Republican from the Woodlands, said his proposal would prevent officers from carrying out any future federal orders to confiscate assault rifles and ammunition magazines.
Toth’s proposal would create a Class A misdemeanor for police officers enforcing any new federal gun regulations. It also would establish cause for the state attorney general to sue anyone who seeks to enforce new federal gun regulations. It is one of several states-rights measures being offered by conservative state lawmakers nationwide in response to federal gun control proposals.
I think this is a dangerous path to go down. We can’t have states running around claiming not to enforce federal laws. The confusion it would create is massive. Not to mention the continual lurching back and forth as one party or another assumes the role of majority and passes legislation that would enforce said law.
With that said, I have to admit that I feel a bit of “tribal yelp” as I see the states reacting like this. And I have to work hard to subdue those passions are work to look at the goal objectively.
However, while I don’t think states should willy nilly decide which federal laws they will or will not enforce, it is important to point out that this is in direct response to Obama’s decision to restrict states from enforcing federal laws that HE disagrees with. Namely, states trying to enforce immigration laws already on the books. Let’s not forget the battle in Arizona where the Obama administration sued Arizona.
So, while the logical conclusion of this activity is undesirable, that conclusion was set in motion by Obama.
By Tuesday, if you believe the deadline Biden has for his report, Obama is going to receive a report on how to curb violence. By the way, wouldn’t it be nice if the President could demand as timely a report on such things as budgets? Anyway, the report ….
We all have ideas on what we might like to see in the report. It goes all the way from ban every single gun in America to posting armed guards at every single school.
But I think that reasonable people understand a couple things:
Gun violence in America is heading down.
There really is very little need for assault weapons and large capacity clips.
The most recent string of mass shootings involved mentally retarded individuals.
That allowing our 6 year old kids to play with toy guns makes a parent a bit queezy.
Hollywood’s obsession with violence creates a “culture of violence”.
Same for video games.
But no one likes to hear that when the target of blame falls on them or theirs. The NRA doesn’t wanna hear that guns kill people. And the parents of children with learning disabilities don’t wanna hear that the shooters were crazy. Parent’s don’t wanna think that there is anything wrong with cops and robbers or cowboys and indians.
And Hollywood doesn’t wanna hear that their movies cause violent reactions:
Listen, I don’t know if violent movies cause kids to fantasize about violent acts and that those fantasies then are played out. But I DO know that if Hollywood feels they can wade into matters politic then they are certainly fair game when it comes time to lay blame.
A Wisconsin jewelry store owner is under fire from customers for opting out of the state’s recently-passed concealed carry law.
Bret Eulberg, owner of Robert Haack Diamonds in Greenfield, Wis., says he has been getting angry messages threatening a boycott of the store. The new law allows residents to carry concealed firearms in public, but business owners still have a say whether or not they want to observe the law in their stores.
“We’re getting phone calls saying we’re not going to come to your store supporting you because you’re against gun rights,” Eulberg told Fox6Now.com. “We’re not against gun rights. My contention is if a bad guy is in my store and you’re a good Samaritan in my store and you see the bad guy whipping out the gun, we already have security procedures in place to protect ourselves.”
Private property is private property. Mr. Eulberg isn’t saying that you can’t carry a gun, he’s not saying that he disagrees with you carrying a gun, he’s saying he doesn’t want you to carry a gun on his PRIVATE property.