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”?
very shortly my OC routine will be in place as well...
Of course the fed judiciary is going to over rule the states. The point is what occurs in the field when the law is tested. I suspect it’ll end in a shoot out or nearly so. Then there’s the state response...will they roll over or give the fed the single finger salute? The various states presumably didn’t go thru this exercise just to play dead. I think things are nearly at a tipping point and it won’t take much more from DC to start some real trouble.
Thanks for the clarification. Seems really... dumb... to me. What’s to stop the FedGuv from doing what they’ve done heretofore with Commerce Clause garbage, etc. That doesn’t strike me as something our Founders intended.
As far as Roe, I’m not interested. I know where I stand on the issue, and there’s nothing that the finding needs to tell me except that women can legally destroy a life.
I fully support your efforts to carry legally. if Congress began legislating on carrying, a strong argument could be made that Congress exceeded its authority, and that the commerce clause does not apply. But many states have reciprocity agreements with other states on carrying, so it remains an open question whether Congress could legislate on the matter.
BTTT.
You might want to consider American history, 1861-1865. It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.
I’d like to see a do-over on that.
My personal view is that the commerce clause has been badly abused. FDR wanted the power, and SCOTUS upheld the New Deal laws. So there it is. If SCOTUS severely restricts the cc, it will create a profound change in the United States.
LOL!
That reminds me; our former Sheriff is now Lt. Governor. I’ll have to apply for a carry permit to see if anything’s changed with our new county Sheriff.
New Jersey’s “may issue” is typically more like “may issue but probably won’t”.
ping
Any recommendations for “light” reading on the Commerce Clause? I’d like a neutral write up, but I wouldn’t care if it’s slanted. I’ve been socialized in the school systems already.
Roe v Wade pertained to a Texas law denying abortions and was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
As the SCOTUS found the right of women to have abortions in the Constitution where it doesn’t exist, they could well find that the 10th and 2nd do not apply to the states. They’re wrong, but they make the rules. So far anyway.
IMHO this subject is about state sovereignty and is backed by the Constitution.
You might look at James M. Burns, “FDR: The Lion and the Fox,” a pro-FDR biography, but it will give you information on how the commerce clause was used as a vehicle to promote the New Deal. You might check up on how the Brady Law uses the commerce clause—books by John Lott (google them).
“It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.”
Which is why the people in the federal government had best remember that as they are seriously outnumbered.
It seldom ends well for the losers in a war.
Interesting FYI on Roe...the backers of Roe went to federal court and up front admitted they went that way cause it would be too expensive to go state by state...
Thanks bamahead. Primarily a recap of much of what we have already discussed here. Always good to see the issue getting more “face time” though. Added our “10thamendment” tag for future reference.
Numbers mean nothing, FRiend. If there isn't a fire in the belly of those willing to fight, then the message will never get out and most of us would just assume give up our rights to "live," instead of facing a hail of bullets.
Personally, I'll take the Henry Bowman road out of town.
If I had to guess - and it’s ONLY a guess - I’d say there are some state legislatures and officials who see the writing on the wall as far as the extremist policies coming out of this administration and are taking steps now to keep the FEDS in check. Just a guess.
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.