Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-14-2014, 11:50 PM
Kasspur's Avatar
Kasspur Kasspur is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 175
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default AZ making a bold move.

Not sure if it's been posted yet with all of the CCW posts but I think this may be worth looking at.

http://m.eastvalleytribune.com/arizo....html?mode=jqm

"The legislation approved on a 6-3 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations that violate the “true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment are invalid and void in this (Arizona) state.” SB 1294 also forbids the use of state personnel or resources to enforce those rules."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-14-2014, 11:57 PM
rdsii64 rdsii64 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The AZ state legislature is doing the right thing. I hope that trend catches on in other states.
__________________
.308 Howa 1500, 24" heavy varmint barrel.
.223 Howa 1500 24" heavy varmint barrel.
RRA 20" predator pursute upper/C3 defense Lower.
Vortex optics
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-15-2014, 12:08 AM
IntoForever's Avatar
IntoForever IntoForever is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,079
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

I'd say that I hope it happens here in CA but I'm afraid someone would label me 5150 for it and lock me up.
__________________
With all this "gun control" talk, I've not heard one politician say how they plan on taking guns from criminals, just law abiding Citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nose Nuggets View Post
5 guys, hot damn thats some good eat'n.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pyromensch View Post
damn, i duped my own thread...first time i did a poll
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-15-2014, 8:08 AM
Bluesman's Avatar
Bluesman Bluesman is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Slab City
Posts: 498
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IntoForever View Post
I'd say that I hope it happens here in CA but I'm afraid someone would label me 5150 for it and lock me up.
Exactly. Common sense is not permitted in the PRK.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-15-2014, 8:18 AM
penguin0123 penguin0123 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,917
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Glad to see 10th Amendment being exercised.

JFK once said that the most significant change in his lifetime was the expansion of the federal government. One can only hope that the most significant change in our lifetime is the shift of power back to the states via the 10th.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-15-2014, 9:05 AM
seo seo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 259
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasspur View Post
Not sure if it's been posted yet with all of the CCW posts but I think this may be worth looking at.

http://m.eastvalleytribune.com/arizo....html?mode=jqm

"The legislation approved on a 6-3 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations that violate the “true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment are invalid and void in this (Arizona) state.” SB 1294 also forbids the use of state personnel or resources to enforce those rules."
Too bad the vote is meaningless. Can a county decide not to obey enforce state law? Can a city decide to not enforce a county ordinance or state law.

Can Federal Law enforcement officials come into the state and enforce those laws? (of course they can)

Can the federal government withhold Federal money to the state for doing this? (Of course they can)

Why is the state not fighting this the proper way, in court, instead of wasting their taxpayer's money doing it this way?

Besides, who's definition of "true meaning and intent" are they going to use? Yours, theirs, who's? Leave it open to interpretation and you usually do not get the result you think you will get.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-15-2014, 9:35 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,669
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasspur View Post
Not sure if it's been posted yet with all of the CCW posts but I think this may be worth looking at.

http://m.eastvalleytribune.com/arizo....html?mode=jqm

"The legislation approved on a 6-3 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules and regulations that violate the “true meaning and intent of the Second Amendment are invalid and void in this (Arizona) state.” SB 1294 also forbids the use of state personnel or resources to enforce those rules."
Largely symbolic and nothing more:
  1. See the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:
    Quote:
    ...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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...
  2. See also Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).

  3. So while a State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-15-2014, 10:02 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

While it is true that Federal agents can enforce federal laws in AZ, there are very few federal agents in the state. The vast majority of arrests are made by local law enforcement. If they are instructed to not enforce certain federal laws, this will most definitely result in a huge reduction in arrests for those particular federal crimes.

You can liken this to CA's medical marijuana laws that run contrary to clearly established federal law. The practical effect of having a medical marijuana card is that these people rarely get popped by local PD, who have been instructed to not arrest those with a card and amounts consistent with personal use.

Sure, the Feds can still come after them, but they expend their resources on the growers, distributors, etc., and all but ignore he MJ card carrying pot heads.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-15-2014, 10:54 AM
PhillyGunner PhillyGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Back East
Posts: 751
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Largely symbolic and nothing more:
  1. See the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2:
  2. See also Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).

  3. So while a State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.

I think this is the exact point... and why this may actually have a positive effect for us. (eventually)

While the Feds can certainly enforce Federal law in these states without the state's help... if you were to be talking about 6 or 7 states... and maybe even just 2 or 3, this could become very onerous, costly and time consuming for them and at some point the Feds will make a stand.

When they do this, they will have to stipulate that the Constitution is the "... supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby... " and will have to choose between Arizona, Montana, etc. being allowed to stipulate their own state's laws re: 2A so they can allow CA and NY, etc. to continue to stipulate theirs... or they are going to have to choose to enforce the 14th Amendment re: the 2A for all Citizens.

If the Feds choose not to make a stand, or are as unsuccessful as they were against Medical Marijuana... then you will have some very free pro 2A states to at least offset the very anti-2A states we have now.

It is making the point that if the Fed is not careful, then willful states can and will act independently vis-a-vis the Constitution. Of course I can think of (5) examples the Fed should already have received on this issue beginning when the AWB sunset.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-15-2014, 12:03 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,669
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default AZ making a bold move.

The Feds are basically ignoring medical marijuana (and recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington) because the administration's core constituency in general thinks marijuana is cool. Obama loses nothing with his core supporters by giving marijuana a pass.

But gun laws are something else.

Also federal agents can move around and get aggressive about enforcing federal gun laws whenever/if the administration decides it would be desirable.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-17-2014, 9:22 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Practicality

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
The Feds are basically ignoring medical marijuana (and recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington) because the administration's core constituency in general thinks marijuana is cool. Obama loses nothing with his core supporters by giving marijuana a pass.

But gun laws are something else.

Also federal agents can move around and get aggressive about enforcing federal gun laws whenever/if the administration decides it would be desirable.

Sure they can, but once again, nearly all law enforcement interaction in any state is between local law enforcement and citizens. There are relatively few federal officers in AZ or any other state.

If state police forces are instructed to ignore federal gun laws (or any laws), then they will. The only time individuals would get "popped" is if they were unlucky enough to be stopped by a Federal officer.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-17-2014, 9:32 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,669
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
... There are relatively few federal officers in AZ or any other state.

If state police forces are instructed to ignore federal gun laws (or any laws), then they will. The only time individuals would get "popped" is if they were unlucky enough to be stopped by a Federal officer.
You miss the point. The federal government can move federal officers from one State to another. The federal government can temporarily bring federal officers into a State from other States.

I the federal government wants to, it can bring in a bunch of FBI and U. S. Marshalls and ATF agents from other States and set up stings or otherwise "get serious" for a limited period. Anyone caught up in that sort of short term aggressive enforcement program is going to be very unhappy with how things turn out.

The bottom line is that one can not sit back and relax thinking that since there aren't a lot of federal agents in Arizona he has nothing to worry about. The odds might be longer than if the State were also involved, but the possibility of getting caught still exists; and the stakes remain huge.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-17-2014, 10:14 AM
Best sale's Avatar
Best sale Best sale is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The land of the Free ...
Posts: 1,190
iTrader: 27 / 97%
Default

Dang, I love me some Arizona, just a shame its 100F hot up in that zone.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-17-2014, 10:56 AM
sl0re10 sl0re10 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 6,682
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seo View Post
Too bad the vote is meaningless. Can a county decide not to obey enforce state law? Can a city decide to not enforce a county ordinance or state law.
Yes

Quote:
Can Federal Law enforcement officials come into the state and enforce those laws? (of course they can)
Yes

Quote:
Can the federal government withhold Federal money to the state for doing this? (Of course they can)
No actually; not unless it is a program they're not taking part in. They've lost on trying to do a carrot stick thing.

Anyway; look at cal gov at all levels and illegal immigration for the precedent
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-17-2014, 9:44 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,080
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
You miss the point. The federal government can move federal officers from one State to another. The federal government can temporarily bring federal officers into a State from other States.
Sure they can, but that would be an escalation of conflict.

While I agree that the vote is in theory symbolic, practically it's an open confrontation that can lead to all sorts of tangible consequences. For example, if the feds decide to act, the state can at that point go to court and handle it the proper way. A whole state has quite different weight when it comes to SCOTUS than the lonely souls we are currently pushing through the system.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-17-2014, 9:50 PM
Gio's Avatar
Gio Gio is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: In A Box Under The Freeway
Posts: 10,281
iTrader: 333 / 100%
Default

Like what I am hearing, go AZ!
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-17-2014, 10:12 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,669
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
...practically it's an open confrontation that can lead to all sorts of tangible consequences....
On the other hand, you might recall when --
  • in 1960 when U. S. Marshals escorted a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.

  • in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville. Then the intervention of a federal court in Birmingham got the four students enrolled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
...if the feds decide to act, the state can at that point go to court and handle it the proper way. A whole state has quite different weight when it comes to SCOTUS than the lonely souls we are currently pushing through the system.
Having the end result of making a bunch of lawyers a lot of money. But there's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:
  1. United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)

  2. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)

  3. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)

  4. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

  5. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)

  6. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

  7. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

  8. Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)

  9. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

  10. Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).

And of course we have the recent Ninth Circuit case I referenced in post 7.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-18-2014, 6:46 AM
zfields's Avatar
zfields zfields is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 13,164
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
On the other hand, you might recall when --
  • in 1960 when U. S. Marshals escorted a black girl to school in New Orleans, Louisiana.

  • in 1963 when George Wallace attempted to block the desegregation of the University of Alabama. He was confronted by federal marshals, Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, and the Alabama Army National Guard and forced to step aside.

  • in 1963 when Wallace again attempted to stop four black students from enrolling in segregated elementary schools in Huntsville. Then the intervention of a federal court in Birmingham got the four students enrolled.

Having the end result of making a bunch of lawyers a lot of money. But there's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:
  1. United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)

  2. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)

  3. Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)

  4. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

  5. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)

  6. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)

  7. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)

  8. Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)

  9. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

  10. Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).

And of course we have the recent Ninth Circuit case I referenced in post 7.

Nullifying is a bit strong wording for what they are actually doing. Not allowing state resources be used to enforce seems a bit more accurate.

The examples you used during the civil right era supported this, federal resources used to enforce federal laws.

I don't think anyone is doubting they could move every ATF, USM etc to AZ, what is being doubted is it is unreasonable, and very unlikely.
__________________
Sandstorm Custom Rifle Slings : Custom Paracord slings

10% off slings for calguns members. PM for details. Like us on facebook!

Last edited by zfields; 02-18-2014 at 6:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-18-2014, 6:55 AM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Live in AZ, 2nd Home in So. CA
Posts: 8,062
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zfields View Post
Nullifying is a bit strong wording for what they are actually doing. Now allowing state resources be used to enforce seems a bit more accurate.
That is exactly what it is. A minor example, ATF has been allowed the use of some office space in the police station here where I live. That would end and they would now have to pay their own rent.

This simply AZ telling the feds, "Those are your laws. You enforce them. We aren't going to help you."
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler

Last edited by dustoff31; 02-18-2014 at 6:59 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-18-2014, 7:34 AM
ja308 ja308 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,049
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sort of reminds me how the " Colonists" defied the laws of King George 3 !

If anyone gets targeted by the central govt, it will be those republican representatives who have the backbone to challenge the democrat agenda.

An agenda Calgunners will recognize as originating in Brussels or some other far off place !

Yeah I can prove it !
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-18-2014, 8:10 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,669
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderthal View Post
Move a large force of Feds into Az and do stings and roadblocks? Are you insane that would be the beginning of an open Revolution....
The feds have certainly done that sort of thing enforcing marijuana laws:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-18-2014, 8:56 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 8,089
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The Feds are light on pot smokers only because they are not a threat. Gun owners, that's another story.

Many in the Federal government believe you are the enemy.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-18-2014, 11:24 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,080
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
But there's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:
Misunderstanding.

I was stating that an escalation of conflict (which Feds can do, as you point out) would open different doors for a state to go and challenge a federal law in federal court directly (the correct way to address federal laws,) not that the state would go to court to try to uphold the nullification (which will never work, as you point out.)
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-18-2014, 11:35 AM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 3,669
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
...I was stating that an escalation of conflict (which Feds can do, as you point out) would open different doors for a state to go and challenge a federal law in federal court directly (the correct way to address federal laws,) not that the state would go to court to try to uphold the nullification (which will never work, as you point out.)
But that would not work. The State would not have standing to judicially challenge federal law in that way.

The sort of challenge you seem to visualize requires and actual, justiciable dispute and thus someone directly and personally adversely affected by the application of the federal law. A State might choose involve itself in such a suit, but it wouldn't take the lead. The State of Montana intervening in the suit I referred to in post 7 sure didn't seem to help any.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-18-2014, 12:18 PM
Jwtechnic's Avatar
Jwtechnic Jwtechnic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Finally free in AZ - Formerly Bay Area
Posts: 264
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Arizona and many other states have these guys to thank or spearheading this legislation.

http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...96069335937500

They have been doing some great work.
__________________
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.

When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic110666_7.gif
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-18-2014, 12:33 PM
Rickrock1's Avatar
Rickrock1 Rickrock1 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chino CA,
Posts: 4,492
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsii64 View Post
The AZ state legislature is doing the right thing. I hope that trend catches on in other states.
^^^
__________________
....Steer hard Right Rand Paul 2016.....


“Silence makes cowards out of the best of men” –Abraham Lincoln

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no way to defend ourselves and our families.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-18-2014, 3:52 PM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 8,089
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
While it is true that Federal agents can enforce federal laws in AZ, there are very few federal agents in the state.
They will get around to enforcing that as soon as they round up all the illegal aliens.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:59 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.