Arizona....you are doing it right!

[njineermike]

Won't work because of the supremacy clause. Federal law is supreme law of the land

The law prevents state police from being used to enforce federal weapons statutes.

It is legal.

Printz vs US established that local/state LEO cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.

It was based on this:
[t]he Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program". New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992).

Federal agents can still enforce federal law, but state agents are not allowed to support the activity. Perfectly legal.

[Gemini Effect]

HA! Arizona pawns Texas on so many levels, it's not even funny.

You can't even open carry a handgun in Texas.

I wouldn't want to open carry anyway.

[1CavScout]

I wouldn't want to open carry anyway.

I almost always carry concealed, but I sometimes open carry in AZ when I am on the way out to the desert to go shooting. If I need to stop somewhere on the way, I don't have to worry about concealing my gun. I like having the option.

[TacticalPlinker]

9 guys and gals with Ivy League law educations in black robes > a bunch of dumb hicks from an expansion team, er state.

Surely you reference the Supreme Court...

Let me enlighten you on our glorious supreme court... The supreme court judges are not elected, nor do they have term limits, and as such they stay in power until they die or retire... much like a dictator, I might add.

Let's continue... Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are 2 of the 9 judges, both were appointed by our buddy President Obama and both are anti-gun Democrats from New York.

Furthermore, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are yet 2 more of the 9 (that makes 4 total) judges who were both appointed by our good friend President Clinton (remember the "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994?), and both are yep, you guessed it, anti-gun Democrats, one from New York and the other from San Francisco.

So if you're keeping count, 4 of the 9 judges are anti-gun Democrats, from anti-gun Democrat states and appointed by anti-gun Democrat Presidents.

It also happens to be 4 of the 9 judges DO NOT believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms... Reference the 5-4 decisions of McDonald vs. Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008).

So we are 1 more anti-gun Democrat supreme court nominee from losing the 2nd Amendment entirely!

There was also a 5-4 decision in favor of Obama care... Reference National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).

It's just my opinion, but the entire supreme court can shove it! None of them deserve their jobs.
.
.

[truwarier]

If this would only happen in California.. too bad thats just a dream

Well from my understanding the problem we have here are state laws for the most part, so technically even if they passed this bill in CA they would just implement the federal laws as state laws and thus loopholing the s**t out of the bill.

The best thing would be for a complete nullification of both federal and state laws and a restriction on the passing of future laws, regulations etc.

[truwarier]

Won't work because of the supremacy clause. Federal law is supreme law of the land

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land not federal laws.

A law that is not constitutional cannot be passed as a law.

[Nickbowen5]

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land not federal laws.

A law that is not constitutional cannot be passed as a law.

This is true that's what I referenced by the Supremacy clause, but federal law still is enforced when a state's law contradicts. Unconstitutional law cannot be passed, true, but federal has more power than state's. If this law only restricts state LEO, then this point is moot

[digdug74]

As much as I'm enjoying my gun rights here in Az and as much as this proposed legislation puts a grin on my face, at the end of the day, if it were to pass I'm not sure it would be worth a hill of beans if some new gun restrictions were to come down at the federal level. Would end up being a lot like the new marijuana laws in Wa and Co -- total legal at the state level, but still illegal federally and the feds could, at their whim and discretion, crack down as they see fit. Not saying that's right, just saying, that would be the way it would go...

[1CavScout]

^^^ At least it would force the feds to enforce their own laws. They would not be able to use joint task forces with cross sworn local LEO's.

[ja308]

Ditto. I spent a weekend in Tucson two weeks ago, then a day up in Scottsdale and unfortunately had to come back to the PRK. Nice places, nitce people, tons of freedom everywhere. The entire drive back, people would move out of the fast lane to let you by... as soon as I hit the CA border, the very first car I came up on would absolutely positively not move out of the fast lane. This is a stupid little microcosm of everything I loathe about CA.

Try Wyoming or Missouri where state police target, ticket and fine " left lane bandits"
I seen it happen to California drivers, most who have never heard the concept lane discipline or keep right except to pass

[Aim2MB]

Surely you reference the Supreme Court...

Let me enlighten you on our glorious supreme court... The supreme court judges are not elected, nor do they have term limits, and as such they stay in power until they die or retire... much like a dictator, I might add.

Let's continue... Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are 2 of the 9 judges, both were appointed by our buddy President Obama and both are anti-gun Democrats from New York.

Furthermore, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are yet 2 more of the 9 (that makes 4 total) judges who were both appointed by our good friend President Clinton (remember the "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994?), and both are yep, you guessed it, anti-gun Democrats, one from New York and the other from San Francisco.

So if you're keeping count, 4 of the 9 judges are anti-gun Democrats, from anti-gun Democrat states and appointed by anti-gun Democrat Presidents.

It also happens to be 4 of the 9 judges DO NOT believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees citizens the right to keep and bear arms... Reference the 5-4 decisions of McDonald vs. Chicago (2010) and District of Columbia vs. Heller (2008).

So we are 1 more anti-gun Democrat supreme court nominee from losing the 2nd Amendment entirely!

There was also a 5-4 decision in favor of Obama care... Reference National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012).

It's just my opinion, but the entire supreme court can shove it! None of them deserve their jobs.
.
.

*cough* (From Wiki- Because Google-fu is just that strong.)
The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, take senior status, or are removed after impeachment (though none has ever been removed.)

I think your definition of dictator differs from mine. You can't impeach a dictator; but Article III of the Constitution clearly sets the guidelines for such an occasion should it find need (re: Good Behavior Clause.)

Also "The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate". It's not an arbitrary Presidential decision that you seem to think it is.

Don't make me post a School House Rock about the SCOTUS. I will. :P

[Aim2MB]

Besides; 4:9 Libs, 4:9 Conservative +1 Swing sounds like a fair representation of the American People, don't you think?

[TacticalPlinker]

Besides; 4:9 Libs, 4:9 Conservative +1 Swing sounds like a fair representation of the American People, don't you think?

No. I don't. I could not disagree more with the nation being subject to the biased opinions of 9 people. Regardless of their political affiliations.

I do not believe the original intent behind the supreme court was to give basically unquestionable authority to 9 people.

No more so than the office of president is to give unquestionable authority to 1 person.

No more so than government agencies such as the IRS, ATF, DHS, DOJ and others being given unquestionable authority.

Yet all of this has happened under our current administration and the previous and those before it. Little has been done about it, even less is the number of people held accountable and no one seems to care. Even Congress, who's job is basically being eliminated via executive orders and decree from our glorious president who can do nothing wrong and cannot be questioned (much like that of his administration, ie. Eric Holder).

Speaking of Congress, though I do not support their conduct or legislative & financial decisions, at the very least there are 535 of them (at last count) and it takes a large majority of them for a bad decision to become law/a reality. Again, we are not held hostage by the whims of 9 people (supreme court). Or 1 person (the president).

This country is following in the foot steps of every failed government in history. History does indeed repeat itself. Absolute authority, does indeed corrupt absolutely.

But that's just my opinion.

[TacticalPlinker]

*cough* (From Wiki- Because Google-fu is just that strong.)
The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, take senior status, or are removed after impeachment (though none has ever been removed.)

I think your definition of dictator differs from mine. You can't impeach a dictator; but Article III of the Constitution clearly sets the guidelines for such an occasion should it find need (re: Good Behavior Clause.)

Also "The Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate". It's not an arbitrary Presidential decision that you seem to think it is.

Don't make me post a School House Rock about the SCOTUS. I will. :P

I won't argue semantics... We both know no one will ever impeach a supreme court justice. There is no one to hold them accountable for their actions.

Congress also has a Democrat majority in the Senate and a near majority in the House. And with the Republican leadership doing everything (and nothing), in their power to combat this administration, I have little faith in the fact supreme court appointments require nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Both of which are Democrat (by majority).

[Aim2MB]

No. I don't. I could not disagree more with the nation being subject to the biased opinions of 9 people. Regardless of their political affiliations.

I do not believe the original intent behind the supreme court was to give basically unquestionable authority to 9 people.

No more so than the office of president is to give unquestionable authority to 1 person.

No more so than government agencies such as the IRS, ATF, DHS, DOJ and others being given unquestionable authority.

Yet all of this has happened under our current administration and the previous and those before it. Little has been done about it, even less is the number of people held accountable and no one seems to care. Even Congress, who's job is basically being eliminated via executive orders and decree from our glorious president who can do nothing wrong and cannot be questioned (much like that of his administration, ie. Eric Holder).

Speaking of Congress, though I do not support their conduct or legislative & financial decisions, at the very least there are 535 of them (at last count) and it takes a large majority of them for a bad decision to become law/a reality. Again, we are not held hostage by the whims of 9 people (supreme court). Or 1 person (the president).

This country is following in the foot steps of every failed government in history. History does indeed repeat itself. Absolute authority, does indeed corrupt absolutely.

But that's just my opinion.

I don't understand your arguement. Do you believe we're being held hostage by the Government, or not? Just trying to wrap my head around your statement.