Posted on 03/11/2010 9:38:05 AM PST by usalady
An increasing number of U.S. states are revolting against the Federal Government's attempts to control the possession of firearms.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
BFL
Delicious! I hope FL takes note and follows suit.
Purchased my pistol in Tx in late 80’s, moved to WA state, back to Tx, then to Utah. How do they know that I didn’t sell that pistol in a private transaction last week?
Such laws will no doubt be found overruled by federal law, but they do serve notice that any gun-ban tactics by Obama will be resolutely defeated.
ATF’s answer. We don’t care, try and stop us.
I don’t believe SCOTUS has a say over state laws. The whole point of this is to assert 10th amendment rights wherein the States call the shots.
I lost mine in a very unfortunate boating accident... sad, sad day. My guns are in a better place.
I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).
Arizona has had an almost doubling of conceal carrys this past years as well as the same in open carry reported by police.
GREAT!
I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).
Arizona has had an almost doubling of conceal carrys this past years as well as the same in open carry reported by police.
GREAT!
What do you think Roe v Wade was all about?
If state law conflicts with federal law, SCOTUS certainly does have a say!
I wasn’t born when Roe v Wade took place, so I can’t answer to it. This issue is one on state sovereignty. I don’t see how a State could pass a law like this, asserting sovereignty, only to have SCOTUS beat it back.
My impression, when reading these articles, is that the States wish for legal exemption from Federal regulations. If they can’t do that, then why would they even try?
>I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).
Let them see {and explain about it} but not touch. It is the unfamiliarity with weapons and the “gasp-response” which condition “the kids” to believe that guns are bad.
In fact, I’d go so far as to say let them touch... after disassembling it to show/explain how it works. (Provided that it’s not inappropriate to turn it into a learning-experience/teaching-session AND not in danger of damaging the weapon or its functionality.)
The main strength of the gun-control crowd is the ignorance, of the general population, regarding guns.
You DO realize how silly that comment is, don’t you? The day you actually need to USE that excuse is several days after you should have been USING your guns.
>I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).
And what if that federal law conflicts with the federal Constitution? I have a particular example regarding state law and state Constitution; my state’s Constitution forbids laws abridging carrying arms for defense, and yet there is a state statute which prohibits firearms on campus.
Oh sorry, the previous should have been:
>If state law conflicts with federal law, SCOTUS certainly does have a say!
I guess I didn’t fully press Ctrl-C.
Please consult Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. If Congress occupies, or partially occupies a field of law, state laws that conflict are unconstitutional. States are issuing “shots across the bow” to warn off Obama against new gun laws, in my view. Btw, there is much you can read about Roe even though you were born after it!
The constitution says if not specific power to feds then the states own it. The judges over time have let the commerce clause mean what ever the feds have wanted. Time to test it again. then at some point, test it in the real world of enforcement.
Of course they do.
Remeber “Lawrence”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.