PDA

View Full Version : 5th state exempts guns. Is Washington noticing?


Ogolden1
03-16-2010, 4:46 PM
As a follow-up to the last thread I posted: "Wyoming plans to fine Feds $2,000 over gun rules!"
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=279540

It appears that South Dakota has now joined the party!
And there are MANY other states with pending legislation!

Check out the U.S. state(s) map in the article!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128035


The Firearms Freedom Act http://www.firearmsfreedomact.com/ website also reveals that other states either with pending legislation or pending plans include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.

Thoughts??? ... Comments??? ... Discussion???

--------------------------------
Btw, how do I attach a URL using different text? (ie: showing "Firearms Freedom Act" underlined to click on). Is it the [wrap HTML tags around text] that I use?

mrrsquared79
03-16-2010, 4:55 PM
Oh how I wish CA would wake up...:79:

CHS
03-16-2010, 5:26 PM
Thoughts? I think it's ridiculous and stupid.

Think of it, if this goes the way these states want it to go, then it means States rights is more important than things like incorporation.

It means that if States rights is more important than things like incorporation, California can enact worse and worse gun laws and we have no way to fight them.

Shotgun Man
03-16-2010, 5:33 PM
Thoughts? I think it's ridiculous and stupid.

Think of it, if this goes the way these states want it to go, then it means States rights is more important than things like incorporation.

It means that if States rights is more important than things like incorporation, California can enact worse and worse gun laws and we have no way to fight them.

No, these laws seek to limit the fed's expansion of the commerce clause as opposed to limiting the 2A.

If the laws attempted to limit an individual right, you'd have a point. The commerce clause is basically a staging platform for federal encroachment on all manners of freedom, including growing weed in your backyard for personal consumption.

The fed's commerce clause powers have gone hog-wild. They need to be limited.

Ogolden1
03-16-2010, 5:40 PM
In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued.

Ogolden1
03-16-2010, 5:42 PM
The fed's commerce clause powers have gone hog-wild. They need to be limited.

I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!

Shotgun Man
03-16-2010, 5:43 PM
In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.

"Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote.

"When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued.

This I want to see.

goodlookin1
03-16-2010, 5:48 PM
I'm inclined more towards bdsmchs' thoughts.

You cant have it both ways: 2A incorporation to all states, then turn around and say "Federal laws cant touch INTRA-state firearms (or intrastate commerce)". Do you want Federal rules or State rules?

Maybe i'm missing something, but I dont see how you can have both without one superceding the other.

nobody_special
03-16-2010, 5:57 PM
goodlookin1, incorporation is a completely separate issue. Incorporation will (theoretically) enjoin states from violating 2nd amendment rights. That in no way conflicts with a state attempt to assert 10th amendment powers against federal laws which vastly exceed their Constitutional authority.

dustoff31
03-16-2010, 6:05 PM
Thoughts? I think it's ridiculous and stupid.

Think of it, if this goes the way these states want it to go, then it means States rights is more important than things like incorporation.

It means that if States rights is more important than things like incorporation, California can enact worse and worse gun laws and we have no way to fight them.

It won't even get to that. These state laws are happy thoughts, but that's about it. How do they plan to enforce them? They can't. And I really can't see SCOTUS being of any help here.

Nightmare Scenario: Not to mention loss of fed funding etc, say a state throws a federal agent in jail for enforcing fed gun laws. A fed court sends US Marshals to get the agent out of jail. The state then calls up the NG to fend off the USMS. The President federalizes the NG and tells them to rescue the agent and the Marshals. The NG refuses. Feds declare an insurrection and send in Federal troops.

It just ain't going to happen.

Shotgun Man
03-16-2010, 6:10 PM
It won't even get to that. These state laws are happy thoughts, but that's about it. How do they plan to enforce them? They can't. And I really can't see SCOTUS being of any help here.

Nightmare Scenario: Not to mention loss of fed funding etc, say a state throws a federal agent in jail for enforcing fed gun laws. A fed court sends US Marshals to get the agent out of jail. The state then calls up the NG to fend off the USMS. The President federalizes the NG and tells them to rescue the agent and the Marshals. The NG refuses. Feds declare an insurrection and send in Federal troops.

It just ain't going to happen.

But I want to see it.

dustoff31
03-16-2010, 6:36 PM
But I want to see it.

Slightly OT

That sort of thing used to happen. But I think those days are long gone.

Snip:
Governor Moeur is perhaps best known for his audacity in mobilizing the Arizona National Guard in March 1934 to prevent the construction of Parker Dam, which was to divert Colorado River water to Los Angeles. Secretary of Interior Harold Ickes was furious, but he was forced to halt construction of the dam until Arizona's water claims were adjudicated.


Goff, John F. Arizona Biographical Dictionary. Black Mountain Press. Cave Creek, Arizona 1983.
p. 264

Website

Tempe Historical Museum Profile-Benjamin B. Moeur
http://www.tempe.gov/museum/ind0004.htm

Tempe Historical Museum-Benjamin B. Moeur House
http://www.tempe.gov/museum/hps148.htm

Read more about Parker Dam

Books/Manuscripts

Stuart family papers, 1903-1967, bulk 1925-1956
MS CM MSS 77

J. Morris Richards collection, 1910-1989 [manuscript]
MS FM MSS 39

A protest : rights of Arizona, its citizens and residents invaded by withdrawal order of Secretary of Interior Wilbur of October 28, 1932.

The Governor Benjamin B. Moeur residence : home of the Tempe Community Council.
XUTE 15.4:B 35

In the Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1934 : no. 18, original : United States of America, plaintiff vs. State of Arizona, defendant.
F788 .A74

The Director
03-16-2010, 6:40 PM
But I want to see it.

Pay per view of the century!!!!

B Strong
03-16-2010, 6:57 PM
Thoughts? I think it's ridiculous and stupid.

Think of it, if this goes the way these states want it to go, then it means States rights is more important than things like incorporation.

It means that if States rights is more important than things like incorporation, California can enact worse and worse gun laws and we have no way to fight them.

I'm with you.

As much as this might make someone feel good, the first guy that sets up a suppressor assembly line w/o a SOT is going to get a visit, and those state statutes are going to mean squat.

nobody_special
03-16-2010, 7:02 PM
I don't know about Washington, but the New York Times has noticed... with a headline article!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17states.html?hp

wildhawker
03-16-2010, 7:10 PM
We'll talk after SCOTUS overturns Wickard v. Filburn.

pointedstick
03-16-2010, 7:16 PM
I think it's a silly unenforceable gesture — until 33 states pass 'em and realize that they have enough votes for a constitutional amendment. Oh what a show that would be.

Gray Peterson
03-16-2010, 7:29 PM
Washington isn't noticing. In fact, these laws are worse than worthless. It gives cover votes to squishy politicians who can introduce and pass bills which are "pro-gun". When they vote to remove "banned areas" from their state statutes, they are truly "pro-gun".

Hogxtz
03-16-2010, 8:14 PM
Paul Helmke might want to start looking for a new job!

expensivehobbies
03-17-2010, 9:45 AM
Washington isn't noticing. In fact, these laws are worse than worthless. It gives cover votes to squishy politicians who can introduce and pass bills which are "pro-gun". When they vote to remove "banned areas" from their state statutes, they are truly "pro-gun".

I agree, these are the gun version of feel good laws that do essentially nothing to actually advance our rights.

MP301
03-19-2010, 12:47 AM
I agree, these are the gun version of feel good laws that do essentially nothing to actually advance our rights.

Probably a true statement....but, it will be interesting to see how this will play out after all these "feel good" laws in all of these states go into effect.

I have not been paying close attention, but if I remember correctly...a lot of what the laws like these are saying/doing..is making it a no no for state/local LE to enforce federal laws pertaining to home grown firearms. That in itself is quite interesting because...well, just how many federal agents will it take to enforce these laws without the assistance of local or state LE? That has got to have some affect, yes?

Then, at some point, there will be a battle of wills between these states and the Feds. The feds will do their best to show those puny states exactly who is boss...and I think they will try to do it in a very obnoxious and public way. If that happens, then what is a puny state to do? They will want/need to save face amongst their constituents.....

I dont know if there is something we are just not seeing in all this or what, but it should be interesting :lurk5: to watch it unfold as it will be very entertaining....maybe.

Dirtbozz
03-19-2010, 6:07 AM
Thoughts? I think it's ridiculous and stupid.

Think of it, if this goes the way these states want it to go, then it means States rights is more important than things like incorporation.

It means that if States rights is more important than things like incorporation California can enact worse and worse gun laws and we have no way to fight them.

It means nothing of the kind! It is time to slap the Federal Government back into it's place!!! The country needs to go back to it's Constitutional foundation, for many reasons, not just our gun rights.

:79: I will see those SOBs in Washington put in their place before they put me in the ground. A strong military (without their interference) and proper alignment of the national highways at the state borders are the only thing they should be involved in. Congress should convene only once a year for a very short time. It's time "for change" :D

JDay
03-19-2010, 8:13 AM
Thoughts? I think it's ridiculous and stupid.

Think of it, if this goes the way these states want it to go, then it means States rights is more important than things like incorporation.

It means that if States rights is more important than things like incorporation, California can enact worse and worse gun laws and we have no way to fight them.

Laws that go against the Constitution aren't enforceable. What these states are doing will have no effect on incorporation.