Little cities versus federal law
Jul 04, 2013 | 826 views | 0 0 comments | 29 29 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Currently I am reading with interest how small towns in Texas, such as Poth and Falls City, are passing resolutions defending Amendment II on Right to bear arms of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The article reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Falls City resolution in part states, “All federal...laws...limiting the size of magazines for any invalid in the state of Texas and shall further be considered null and void and of on effect in this city.”

I am not a constitution lawyer, but in my opinion if the US Congress (Senate and House) passes a law signed by the U.S. President and declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court by a 9 to 0 vote that no gun can have a magazine that could carry no more than 10 rounds, that law would be valid for all cities, including Poth and Falls City.

Again in my opinion, the Falls City law saying that the federal law “would be considered null and void and have no effect in this city” would be unconstitutional since these matters federal law over rule city law.

In trying to read the founders mind, my thought is that their intention was for citizens to keep muskets in their homes to protect them from invasions by the British. I do not think they wanted everyone to have the right to large assault type weapons with clips of 100 rounds.

The person that shot Congresswomen Gifford had a magazine with 33 rounds. In 15 seconds he wounded 33 people.

Latest polls show that Americans want stronger background checks by about 90%.

Justin Szalwinski, Sr.
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet