The Incorporation Doctrine was born out of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. There is a lot of legal art that goes into this, but it basically comes down to two hallucinations from the document’s text:

1. The Privileges and Immunities Clause crosses State lines

2. The Due Process Clause crosses State lines

First and foremost, this is a violation of both the 9th and 10th Amendments of the very same US Constitution amended by the 14th. Clearly, the purpose of the 14th Amendment was not to repeal the 9th and 10th Amendments. This would be outrageous.

When it came to one of our nation’s crowning achievements, public education, in 1954 our High Court found, inter alia, “Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). This, clearly states that the law must apply equally to all individuals where a State has undertaken to provide a Right to any individual. This does NOT imply that a State MUST provide any particular Right to any person. This is a subtle yet important distinction.

We have a situation where States may, through their own Constitutions, as Texas has, provide rights similar to (and even extensions thereto) the Rights afforded by the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. In fact, Pennsylvania’s Constitution begins with a Declaration of Rights which was used to inform and direct the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Texas can, as it should, stand by our own Constitution which provides a greater basis for life here in Texas than the DC-swamp-embattled US Constitution.

Further, States are not bound by the decisions of Federal Courts not even the Supreme Court. (West v. AT&T Co., 311 U.S. 223 (1940); Pap's A.M. v. City of Erie, 571 Pa. 375 (Pa. 2002); Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264 (2008); Fulton v. City of Phila., 141 S. Ct. 1868 (2021)). “[N]onuniformity is a consequence of a Federalist system of government.” We do believe in a Federalist system of government, do we not?

A law, ruling, or ordinance cannot cross jurisdictional boundaries. It has been stated numerous times by the Courts of Texas, the Courts of the US and even the Supreme Courts of both. The fact that the same act of purchasing a firearm can be conducted in Texas and California at the same time yet the Texan roams free and the Californian is placed into government bondage, is the point. Each state is free to govern its own without the threat of Federal usurpation.