(NaturalNews) Ever since the Republic of Texas agreed to become a part of a growing United States, there has remained an independence streak a country-mile-wide in what was, until the admission of Alaska, the biggest enclave in the Union.
“Independence-minded Texan,” in fact, is a bit of a redundancy. So it comes as no surprise that the Lone Star State’s political leaders have routinely found themselves at odds with the Obama Administration, which is turning out to be one of the most lawless and corrupt in the history of the nation.
In fact, according to recent reports, Texas political leaders — raw after a series of run-in’s with the Obama White House over its refusal to protect national boundaries and enforce immigration law — may be about to adopt a measure that would essentially nullify all federal gun laws, a move which would be perceived as a direct challenge to federal authority by a hyper-political administration.
As noted by political analyst Michael Lotfi, writing on investigative journalist Ben Swann’s website:
A Texas legislator has introduced a new bill to derail the enforcement of virtually all federal gun control measures within the state’s borders.
‘Invalid’ and ‘not enforceable’
“With this bill, Texas could help lead the country forward,” said Scott Landreth, campaign lead for ShallNot.org, a project of the Tenth Amendment Center, an organization pushing states to protect their citizens from federal overreach. “Passage would have serious impact on the federal government’s ability to carry out its unconstitutional gun control measures already on the books.”
What’s more, Landreth has insisted that such legislation would create a domino effect and spread to other states.
The measure, known as House Bill 176 (HB 176), has been introduced by newly reelected state Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt, R-Lexington. It declares all federal restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in and protected by the Second Amendment, “invalid” and “not enforceable” within the boundaries of Texas. In part, the bill reads:
A federal law, including a statute, an executive, administrative, or court order, or a rule, that infringes on a law-abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 23, Article I, Texas Constitution, is invalid and not enforceable in this state.
If passed, all government agencies and employees within Texas — federal and otherwise — would be prohibited from enforcing any federal statute or rule that violated the Act.
Prohibition on any enforcement includes all federal legislation that:
(1) imposes a tax, fee, or stamp on a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition that is not common to all other goods and services and may be reasonably expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by a law-abiding citizen;
(2) requires the registration or tracking of a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition or the owners of those items that may be reasonably expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by a law-abiding citizen;
(3) prohibits the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition by a law-abiding citizen;
(4) orders the confiscation of a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition from a law-abiding citizen.
‘It will give the federal government pause’
As Obama has done with federal immigration law, as he has done with federal drug laws prohibiting the possession and recreational use of marijuana, and as he did with the federal Defense of Marriage Act (before it was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court) — Texas could simply stop federal laws, and in particular any laws restricting the Second Amendment, while at the same time preventing federal authorities from doing the same thing.
Former Judge-turned-legal commentator Andrew Napolitano has even said that, if a single state stopped enforcing federal gun laws, they would become “nearly impossible” to enforce in the state.
“If a few other states follow Kleinschmidt’s lead, it’ll also give Washington D.C. pause before even trying to pass new restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms,” he was quoted as saying, as reported by Lotfi.
There is even Supreme Court precedence. The 1997 case Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone. In it, Justice Antonin Scalia held:
The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.