Gun Grabbing Rinos in Texas

Gun Grabbing Rinos in Texas

By

James Scott Trimm

Tarrant Families Matter PAC took some heat a few weeks ago when it ran an ad referring to Munford as a RINO.  However the evidence is beginning to pile up. 

In a recent blog I wrote about Judge Harris’s statement in support of Munford’s Gun Grabbing <read it here>.

Now Munford supporter and Family Law attorney Jeff Kaitcer has joined Judge Harris in supporting Munford’s Gun Grabbing court orders and attacking my blog as “fake news” saying:

“The blogger wants a Tarrant County District Judge to declare a Federal Statute unconstitutional. To do so would be the very definition of an “Activist Judge” and legislating from the Bench which I thought, as Republicans, we opposed.”

I pointed out to Kaither that Article VI of the US Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I also pointed out that the phrase "Judges in every State" indicates State Judges, and that Munford took an oath to uphold the Constitution as the highest law of the Land.

Kaitcer replied:

You cite Article 6 which states that the “Constitution and the Laws of the United States.....shall be the supreme Law of the Land....” and yet you blithely declare that Judge Harris and the other Judges should just deem it unconstitutional. Judicial Activism indeed......

However Kaitcer has truncated the important qualifier “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”  Unconstitutional laws are not “made in pursuance” of the Constitution, so the Supremacy Clause does not apply to them.  Judges “in every state” are required by their oath to uphold the US Constitution above unconstitutional laws. 

This is not “judicial activism” at all.  In fact our Texas Republican Party platform specifically addresses how Texas State officials should treat unconstitutional Federal Laws:

 … federally mandated legislation, which infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas, should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Regulation of Commerce in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has exceeded the original intent. All attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly enumerated by the Untied States Constitution should be likewise nullified. Any federal enforcement activities that do occur in Texas should be conducted under the authority of the county sheriff.

(Republican Party Platform for Texas 2016)

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(US Constitution; Amendment 10)

The Second Amendment says:

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.

And the Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…

So any federal law which violates the Second and Fifth Amendments (as the Federal law in question does – click here to read) also violates the Tenth Amendment because the Federal government has no delegated authority to create such a law.

Therefore our Texas Republican Party position is that such laws should be “ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified” by Texas officials (such as judges). 

Moreover our party platform specifically states regarding firearms:

All federal acts, laws, executive orders, and court orders which restrict or infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall be invalid in Texas, not be recognized by Texas, shall be specifically rejected by Texas, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in Texas. Firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold in the state of Texas are not covered under the Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution) and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.

(Republican Party Platform for Texas 2016)

These platform items spring directly from the core principles of the Texas Republican Party, as the Preamble to the 2016 Texas Republican Platform says, “If we fail to maintain our sovereignty, we risk losing the freedom to live these ideals.”  “These ideals” being the principles and planks laid out in the platform.

Moreover the 3rd and 4th Party Principles laid out in the Platform state that “these ideals” include:

3. Preserving American and Texas sovereignty and freedom.

4. Limiting government power to those items enumerated in the United States and Texas Constitutions.

So if you think that Munford should uphold an unconstitutional Federal Law as his excuse for issuing Gun Grabbing court orders, depriving people whose only crime is being a parent, of their second amendment rights, you are in the wrong party!

However this comes as no surprise, since Munford has been endorsed by Protective Parents of Texas, a group which has begun a campaign to federalize Texas Family Law, in direct conflict with our core party principles and platform.

It seems Tarrant Families Matter PAC hit the nail right on the head when it placed the label of RINO on Munford.   

  

Munford is a Gun Grabbing Rino and his supporters are now justifying his Gun Grabbing ways with arguments that violate the core principles of the Texas Republican Party Platform.

Harris is claiming that these orders are coming out routinely from many Texas judges.  If that is the case then lets clean house, starting with Munford.  If you are a Republican Texas judge who supports Munford’s Gun Grabbing orders, please let the voters know who you are! 

For those that want to dismiss my blog as “fake news” I have an outstanding challenge for you to show that anything stated in my blog about Munford’s Gun Grabbing is factually incorrect.

In closing I need to point out that Kaitcer missed or ignored my main point while responding incorrectly to my secondary point.  My primary point was that there is nothing about the Federal law Harris cited that compelled Munford to add this Gun Grabbing provision to his order. This is evidenced by the fact that He was effectively reversed when Berger took it out (though only after the NRA got involved). Munford should have simply issued an order without that provision, and if someone wanted to try to apply the Federal law to his order later, that would be an issue of challenging the Federal law, not challenging his order. But that is not what happened. Munford was not satisfied by the Federal law alone, so he also added gun grabbing language to his order in addition to the Federal law, which the law did not compel him to add. Both the Federal law and Munfords order separately violate the Second amendment rights of parents.

Harris's argument is that the Federal law made Munford do it. My response is two fold: 1. The Federal law did not require him to do it and 2. The Federal law is unconstitutional anyway, and Munford's obligation is to uphold the Constitution as the highest law of the land.

Munford is a Gun Grabbing RINO who rejects core principles of our Texas Republican Party Platform! 

The entire exchange with Kaitcer is below: