I've been hearing that the Texas Department of Public Safety (meaning all sate law enforcement in Texas) won't enforce any new gun laws

Oops. Meant to say Gun Walker.

Well, according to the gospel of John Ross, the job can be pretty bad.

In real world terms, the President has been reluctant to appoint a full time director for fear of blowback over Fast and Furious.

I wrote my congressional representatives not to confirm a BATFE director until that bunch of lying, thieving, murdering thugs answers for Fast and Furious.

Has there been a White House response to this? I'd just love to hear what Obama has to say in response.

What should he have to say? This has no legal leg to stand on. Federal law supersedes state law, period.

Whatever happened to the 10th Amendment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_v._Aaron

It's in the hands of the Supreme Court. And even if there wasn't a pretty clear legal precedent involved here, the federal government can still coerce states financially. The federal government was able to force states to accept the 55 MPH speed limit and a lower BAC level by tying it to federal highway funding.

Yeah, that's what happened. Though the 55 speed limit is still stupid since a lot of state highways have speed limits a lot higher nowadays

Congress repealed the speed law in 1995 (thank God.)

If the states have an issue with the federal law, there are legitimate ways to challenge it. Nullification is not one of them.

BTW, White House press secretary Jay Carney is making the NRA's point for them. "Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," says the man while the president sign his executive orders surrounded by children. So, to be clear, exploiting the president's children in a political fight: wrong. Exploiting other people's children in a political fight: okay.

I thought that was great.

I don't know if any of y'all are on Twitter, but reading the #GunsOverPeople page is great. Especially the amount of pro-gun tweets on there.

It is heartening.

I'm getting sick of reading and hearing on TV the blatant lie that Lanza used an assault rifle at Sandy Hook. :mad:

I'm sick of reading "Assault weapon" or "assault style weapon" or "military style weapon"

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/politi...html?hpt=hp_t2

That's a good sign.

As for the gun show loophole, I spoke to a buddy of mine, and we've been to gun shows in about a dozen states in different regions, and we've never encountered such a thing. We've always had to get a NICS check, and there are signs everywhere reminding everyone that straw purchases are illegal. Is it just pure chance on our part, or is this gun show loophole overblown?

"Is the gun show loop hole overblown?"

Is the B-29 an airplane?

It was a convient scapescope of anti-gun politicians who couldn't abide the thoughts of citizens gathering to express thier constitutional rights in ares where zoning prevents gun shops.

Even the 40% number was form an old, probably flawed study.

However, to here the pundits talk you could buy a bazooka at one with no questions asked.

I really wonder what society would have been like if we had the anti-gun liberals today way back then, post WWII, Post US Civil War, Post American Revolution. Have those guys bitch and moan about the guns available to civilians back then.