Texas just threw down the gauntlet.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

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!
  • DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    26,417
    113
    Ripley County
     

    DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    26,417
    113
    Ripley County
    Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3

    3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
     

    DadSmith

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 21, 2018
    26,417
    113
    Ripley County
    They'll piffle over the definition of invasion, but TX (and the rest of us) can see what's going on. I stand with Texas!
    Oxford dictionary provides the definition they can use. There is no denying it.

     

    wtburnette

    WT(aF)
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    45   0   0
    Nov 11, 2013
    27,507
    113
    SW side of Indy
    Oxford dictionary provides the definition they can use. There is no denying it.


    I agree, however they changed the definition of racism to suit their woke purposes, so I don't think we can rely on such things. They'll be happy to change it overnight to suit their agenda.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,433
    113
    Indiana
    Unfortunately, SCOTUS made the correct, narrow call. It IS the purview of the feds to secure the border, not TX.

    But they cant rule against legit federal law/powers just because they arent doing their jobs and enforcing those laws.

    Somebody needs to sue them and get the SCOTUS to rule that the administration is failing to uphold the law as they should. Or congress needs to grow a pair and legislate it. But they are too weak sauce too.
    The SCOTUS ruling this week only vacated the 5th Circuit's "Injunction Pending Appeal" issued at the end of December. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. Thus the SCOTUS ruling doesn't surprise me given what the justices have done with other "preliminary injunctions". Oral arguments in the 5th Circuit are set for the 8th of February, two weeks from now. This is far from over. I'm anticipating the 5th Circuit will back up Texas.

    :popcorn:
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,433
    113
    Indiana
    Regarding the President activating the Texas National Guard out from under Greg Abbott, at that point, they're Federalized and come under the Posse Comitatus Act . . . and are therefore prohibited from acting as any form of law enforcement against U.S. Citizens and Residents. This was rigorously emphasized to me repeatedly during my two decade career in the U.S. Army. National Guard under state (Governor) control do not fall under the Posse Comitatus Act. That is why U.S. troops and National Guard mix were used after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Federal troops could be used for humanitarian aid and rescue but NOT for any law enforcement. The National Guard troops . . . including those borrowed from neighboring states . . . could be, provided they weren't federalized and remained under Louisiana Governor command/control.
     
    Top Bottom