Posted on 09/04/2010 9:14:26 AM PDT by marktwain
Helena, Mont. (AP) - A federal magistrate is recommending dismissal of a lawsuit filed by eight states seeking freedom from federal gun laws.
The recommendation now goes to the federal judge hearing the case.
The states argue they should decide which rules would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made inside their borders.
The federal magistrate sided Wednesday with the U.S. Department of Justice and gun control advocates who say the courts have already decided that Congress can set standards on such items as guns through its power to regulate interstate commerce.
The states in the lawsuit are Montana, Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I too want to see the states have their day in court.
IMHO "Interstate Commerce" has been abused over and over by the federal government.
It’s kind of like your cheating me and then you allowing me to ask you to determine if you really cheated me.
“I’m unsure whether a presumptuous federal mandate even deserves the respect of an official nullification passed in a statehouse. When a bratty child acts up beyond their proper station, the best course isn’t always to sit them down and rationally explain why they’re out of line. Sometimes it is, but not always.”
You right, but nullification is not an act of the state per say its a notification of the State of illegitimate and unlawful nature of a Federal act. A legally binding Notification. The Next step is interposition, as the Feds will no doubt ignore that notification, therefore it is necessary that force them to confront facts rather then oppress our citizens.
All that being said asking for redress from the Federal Government’s courts is a logically fair first step. We did the same with King George.
“It’s kind of like your cheating me and then you allowing me to ask you to determine if you really cheated me.”
It’s not like that it IS that.
Who ever first got the idea that we could have Constitution of Civil Government when the Final word on the enforcement of that constitution is held by the very same people who are binded by that constitution has got to be either obscenely corrupt or a madman.
If your going to put the Fox in charge of guarding the Hen House you might as well not have a Hen House.
Sure. I agree that you have to play the game out by the rules first. I suppose there’s the remote chance they might even rule correctly.
“loosening federal restrictions period would be the most effective means..a tall order admittedly”
Loosen Federal restriction that by the letter of the Constitution are entirely unauthorized to exist in the first place is not only a tall order its an imposable order.
We just ceded to the criminals half our house, and now you want to talk em into only taking a qurtor of our house?
This madness has gone on far enough, its time the criminal leave all together and we stop putting up with their nonsense.
first The state should nullify the federal law.
2nd: we extract an iron clad promus that the next republican to run MUST and i do say MUST square to fire all federal ATF and FBI agents from his service declaring their job to be in violation of the authorized powers.
Liberals will not like it and indeed this may preclude a president from getting elected, if he can’t get passed us with it and past the general with out it. But we can know one thing. Eventually the center will cave, as the left continue to go crazy.
Its time we start pushing them back, stop accepting the lost territory in compromise, we’ve been doing that for 100+ years and where as it gotten us?
Once the Federal Government has been disarmed, then it wont matter what the Federal magistrates say, they won’t be able to enforce their edicts.
All they will be able to do is let criminals go free. And thats not a problem as far as maintaining gun rights.
The best part of this plan is we don’t got far to go.
The Feds have little to no domestic enforcement assets to start with.
I looked into it further....TN bans handguns but allows scatterguns and rifles in their state restoration statute which makes it vulnerable for any felon fed-wise to own any modern smokeless firearm period...classic catch22 with draconian consequence
also under review:
is a state pardon which restores gun rights applicable in another state and hence an inoculation against Fed issues
answer so far:..a big fat negatory
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.