Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alabama lawmakers vote to ignore new federal gun control laws
Fox ^ | 5/1/13 | ap

Posted on 05/01/2013 7:57:52 PM PDT by Nachum

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Alabama Legislature is telling the federal government and others to back off on gun control.

The Senate passed legislation Tuesday declaring that “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the Second Amendment.” It also says federal laws in violation of the Second Amendment shall be considered null and void in Alabama. The vote was 24-6.

The sponsor, Republican Sen. Paul Sanford of Huntsville, said the bill resulted from hundreds of emails and calls he received from his north Alabama constituents concerned that Congress might enact new gun regulations or restore the previous ban on assault weapons. He said the assault weapon ban is an example of federal regulation that he considers a violation of the Second Amendment.

Democratic Sen. Bobby Singleton of Greensboro, who voted against the measure, said state law can’t trump federal law. “This bill is null and void on its face,” Singleton said.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; banglist; donttreadonme; guncontrol; lawmakers; nocompromise; secondamendment; shallnotbeinfringed; youwillnotdisarmus

1 posted on 05/01/2013 7:57:52 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


2 posted on 05/01/2013 7:58:25 PM PDT by Nachum (The Obama "List" at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

president hussein is all about promoting political harmony and economic prosperity - no doubt he’ll take an understanding and compassionate stance with this.

Hahahahahahaha.


3 posted on 05/01/2013 8:02:14 PM PDT by Jack Hammer (American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

awesome. other states should do the same. at some point we have to say no


4 posted on 05/01/2013 8:11:42 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The vote was 24-6.

6 OBots.

5 posted on 05/01/2013 8:29:52 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

“Democratic Sen. Bobby Singleton of Greensboro” is a moron that needs to read the 10th amendment.


6 posted on 05/01/2013 8:31:42 PM PDT by TheZMan (Buy more ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Good move, let the Supremes sort it out.


7 posted on 05/01/2013 8:35:13 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
YES! Related.
8 posted on 05/01/2013 8:49:20 PM PDT by upchuck (To the faceless, jack-booted government bureaucrat who just scanned this post: SCREW YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Excellent!

This is just one more step on the way to state nullification of federal laws; and I consider such a development a very good thing...

9 posted on 05/01/2013 8:52:51 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

There is nothing in the constitution that says that states must enforce Federal laws.


10 posted on 05/01/2013 9:02:01 PM PDT by sickoflibs (To GOP : Any path to US citizenship IS putting them ahead in line. Stop lying about your position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Well Bobby Singleton, your b/s federal laws don’t trump the Constitution.


11 posted on 05/01/2013 9:12:49 PM PDT by Gator113 ( ~just keep livin~ I drink good wine, listen to good music and dream good dreams.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This is GOP-E feel good legislation if at some future date federal gun control legislation is law and there is a court fight that Second Amendment supporters lose.

They did this to look good at the next election.


12 posted on 05/02/2013 12:08:41 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

The Democrats down south did nullification of racial integration laws 50 or 60 years ago to help them win the next election.

They meant nothing when federal court rulings and civil rights laws prevailed.

This is GOP-E feel good stuff so they can win re-election.


13 posted on 05/02/2013 12:11:51 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Problem is, the Feds money scheme is falling apart.

That’s why they are passing these draconian laws.
That’s why, at every step, they are encouraging people to get federal “Benefits”, food stamps for illegal aliens, etc. The more people they have dependent on the federal checks, the less opposition they think they will get.

So lots of people who realize it are sittin around waitin for the fat lady...

It’s gonna be interesting!


14 posted on 05/02/2013 12:18:08 AM PDT by djf (Rich widows: My Bitcoin address is... 1ETDmR4GDjwmc9rUEQnfB1gAnk6WLmd3n6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

More info about Singleton here:

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/senate/senators/senatebios/sd024.html


15 posted on 05/02/2013 3:02:04 AM PDT by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

According to the Supremes with the Arizona immigration bill, states can’t enforce federal law......

I believe the way the opinion was written, states can’t enforce any federal law! My opimion is one of an Engineer and not a lawyer, but reading for comprehension is stressed in my profession too!

This would all clear up if a few states started treating a few of the other amendments like some states treat the second.

Let’s say TN passed a law limiting the maximum total percentage of income tax paid by its citizens to 10%, thus restricting the 16th Amrndment.

Let’s say Arizona stopped issuing birth certificates (those ain’t Federal!) to children of the undocumented, infringing on the current interpretation of the 14th.

Let’s say TX decided they would elect one Senator but appoint the other from the legislature, restricting the 17th amendment.

It would be great fun to watch!


16 posted on 05/02/2013 4:01:48 AM PDT by noprogs (Borders, Language, Culture....all should be preserved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

             PAlabama says :
17 posted on 05/02/2013 5:59:48 AM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Democratic Sen. Bobby Singleton of Greensboro, who voted against the measure, said state law can’t trump federal law.

Well, Senator, the desires of a bunch of anti-gun wimps can't trump the US Constitution, either.

18 posted on 05/02/2013 6:16:01 AM PDT by NRA1995 (I'd rather be a living "gun culture" member than a dead anti-gun candy-ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
“This bill is null and void on its face,” Singleton said.

The Alabama law says that federal gun laws are a violation of the 2nd amendment. Therefore, this law ensures that the Supreme Court would have to sort it out if a federal gun law is passed and Alabama ignores it.

First, someone at the Federal level would have to charge a state with ignoring a federal law.

Now THAT would be fun to watch.

19 posted on 05/02/2013 7:11:01 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Just sent an email to my Alabama State Representative a couple days ago on this topic. Also, want to see Alabama move from a “may issue” to “shall issue” state.

ROLL TIDE!


20 posted on 05/02/2013 7:21:05 AM PDT by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "p" in Democrat stands for patriotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The Senate passed legislation Tuesday declaring that “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the Second Amendment.”

So that would mean that any federal law regarding firearms currently on the books would be null and void, not just new ones?

21 posted on 05/02/2013 7:29:18 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
This is GOP-E feel good stuff so they can win re-election.

I suppose a terminally cynical and morose person could see it that way. (Is there a problem with wanting to win elections?)

When the federal government spurns its duty to secure our rights, the states are fully justified to step into the breech.

22 posted on 05/02/2013 7:29:52 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

And here algore was just saying that there’s nothing between a Supreme Court decision and an armed revolution.

The states still got juice, folks.


23 posted on 05/02/2013 7:31:42 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: djf

One of the “collapse” scenarios includes the idea that the feds just won’t have the resources to enforce their dictates in all places, and certain jurisdictions are going to simply ignore those dictates.


24 posted on 05/02/2013 7:32:54 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: xzins

You know what jumped out at me?
The word “all”. “All” federal gun laws are a violation of the 2nd amendment.


25 posted on 05/02/2013 7:33:58 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: don-o

All governmental authority in our nation comes from the Constitution. When any entity acts outside of that authority, it ceases to have legitimacy, and simply becomes rule by force. A thugocracy with no legitimate authority.


26 posted on 05/02/2013 7:35:36 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: don-o

I think I have it right.

This would mean nothing in the face of federal law upheld by a federal court.

The Dems in state legislatures nullified integration down South back around 1960 and we all know how that ended. It was a trick by politicians to get segregationist votes.


27 posted on 05/02/2013 8:05:52 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Good catch, MrB. I hadn’t really paid attention to that.

Actually, I agree with it.

I don’t even like the westerns that have folks “checking their guns when they’re in town.” (Virgil Earp in Tombstone)


28 posted on 05/02/2013 8:52:43 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
The Founders recognized the danger of consolidated and centralized power. They dispersed power and created checks and balances.

They enumerated the specific things that the federal government could do, and then buttoned it all up with the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Of course, both in 1960 as well as 1860, the federal government prevailed due to superior force. Will third time be a "charm" and states be able to assert their sovereignty? We shall see. I like it that Alabama is at least moving in that direction.

29 posted on 05/02/2013 8:53:28 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Local ordinance...
not as big a fight as a federal law.


30 posted on 05/02/2013 8:53:52 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Slapping around some local ordinance people...

BTW...does that include Chicago?


31 posted on 05/02/2013 9:07:57 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
The Democrats down south did nullification of racial integration laws 50 or 60 years ago to help them win the next election.

They meant nothing when federal court rulings and civil rights laws prevailed.

I believe this is a specious comparison.

The segregationists of that era certainly did not have moral authority on their side. But I believe that moral authority does, indeed, rest with the resistors to an overweening federal government nowadays.

And I would hope that the states would unite in their total opposition to all federal-court rulings (including those of the SCOTUS), and declare their own (respective) state Supreme Courts to be the ultimate authority on all matters.

32 posted on 05/02/2013 9:03:49 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: noprogs

Awesome!!!


33 posted on 05/02/2013 9:09:23 PM PDT by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

I view this kind of law along with laws about illegal immigrants in AZ and AL and the abortion laws passed in Arkansas and North Dakota as being Karl Rovian “wedge issues” that keep the base riled up supporting the GOP even as they end up being ruled illegal in part or full by federal courts.

There was also a phony law passed when Terri Schiavo’s starvation began in 2005 and signed by President W Bush that raised hopes but did nothing to save her life.

We were told to give the GOP credit for “trying.”

The grassroots are being hustled by insider politicians when these laws are passed.


34 posted on 05/03/2013 12:08:47 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Thank you for your response.

I just put up post #34 to further amplify my opinion.


35 posted on 05/03/2013 12:10:28 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
keep the base riled up supporting the GOP even as they end up being ruled illegal in part or full by federal courts.

You have defined a problem. What's your solution?

Isn't it possible that the people of Alabama are operating in good faith outside the influence of Karl Rove?

As to the Federal courts - if the Executive and Legislative branches fail to balance them, then that balance has to come from the states and the people.

36 posted on 05/03/2013 6:44:36 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: don-o

My thesis is that over 90 percent of the folks we elect are fakes and phonies and that includes deeper “RED” states like AL.

The gov and most of the legislature GOP-E.

The elected Chief Justice of AL Roy Moore is the only for sure outsider I know of in that state, but there are others around but only a few.


37 posted on 05/03/2013 6:59:09 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

Is there a solution in there that I missed?


38 posted on 05/03/2013 7:02:43 AM PDT by don-o (He will not share His glory, and He will not be mocked! Blessed be the Name of the Lord forever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: don-o

The solution can be seen in the headlines coming out of the UK today.

A real conservative party is showing up the phony one.

The phony ones were announcing a tougher prison policy just a few days before yesterday’s vote, so patently obvious they were in Karl Rove mode.

Cameron’s bigger trick a few months back was to suggest if he were re-elected in two years there would be talks with the EU and referendum on the UK role in it.

All symbolic feel good mumbo jumbo.


39 posted on 05/03/2013 7:21:37 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: djf

The fat lady is four hundred pounds plus and I hear her tuning up. When she is ready there will only be one tune she keeps repeating, “It’s All Over but the Cryin” and it will sound like Patsy Cline singing a funeral dirge.


40 posted on 05/03/2013 7:53:32 AM PDT by RipSawyer (I was born on Earth, what planet is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer

Yup, I think yur right.

Well, I got a dozen cases or so of baked beans, some bottled water stored, and lots of fishing gear, time will tell, eh?

(Hope them fish like baked beans!!)

;-)


41 posted on 05/03/2013 10:41:06 AM PDT by djf (Rich widows: My Bitcoin address is... 1ETDmR4GDjwmc9rUEQnfB1gAnk6WLmd3n6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: djf

You need some dry blackeye peas, simmer them slowly and serve with corn bread and fried catfish cooked by the creek bank. That is what real living is about. Fresh picked green blackeyes are even better.


42 posted on 05/03/2013 10:49:52 AM PDT by RipSawyer (I was born on Earth, what planet is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer

There ya go.

We used to catch and cook crawdads all the time.
Fresh water lobsters is all they are!


43 posted on 05/03/2013 10:58:52 AM PDT by djf (Rich widows: My Bitcoin address is... 1ETDmR4GDjwmc9rUEQnfB1gAnk6WLmd3n6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
I view this kind of law along with laws about illegal immigrants in AZ and AL and the abortion laws passed in Arkansas and North Dakota as being Karl Rovian “wedge issues” that keep the base riled up supporting the GOP even as they end up being ruled illegal in part or full by federal courts.

I am sincerely (and deeply) hoping that this--as well as similar laws passed by other states--will be just one more step on the way to the total nullification of federal law (with all the federal courts--including the SCOTUS--having their rulings ignored by the several states).

It is my considered opinion that the highest authority, anywhere in America, as regarding the meaning of the federal Constitution, should be the state Supreme Court of each state. (If, for instance, the state Supreme Court of California should declare ObamaCare to be constitutional, but the state Supreme Court of Georgia should declare it to be unconstitutional, then it should be considered constitutional--according to the federal Constitution--in the state of California; but unconstitutional--again, according to the federal Constitution--in the state of Georgia.)

No need to reconcile the differences, so far as I can see...

44 posted on 05/04/2013 9:00:55 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AmericanExceptionalist

Business as usual Republican politicians are planning on obeying court orders like the Governor of Alabama did some years ago when Chief Justice Roy Moore displayed a Ten Commandments monument in the Supreme Court building.

The federal court ordered it removed and the governor said the ruling had to be complied with.

Some people talked about civil disobedience to oppose the removal of the monument but others agrued against it like columnist David Limbaugh.

Dave Limbaugh expressed his concern that disobedience of the court ruling non-violently would lead to violent disobedience of the court rulings which of course would be violent disobedience of the law.

Historical precedents exist for his argument, like the non-violent civil rights protests. Fifty years ago this weekend the tactics of Bull Connor in Birmingham produced pictures that caused great sympathy among whites outside the South and a nationwide anger among blacks. The black crowd watching the dogs and hoses assault the protestors in Birmingham was so angry they threw rocks at the police and firemen.

The stage was set for a rising tide of violent nationwide race riots that began within weeks and lasted until around 1970.

When Operation Rescue non-violently blocked abortion clinic entrances in the late 80’s and early 90’s it set the stage for some bombings and shootings at abortion clinics that followed.

I’m not giving a final opinion on disobedience of the law as in nullification of federal laws by states, but I am saying that politicians like Rick Perry make their tough speeches in order to win the next election. They have no deep convictions about principles.

Virtually all the GOP politicians out there are empty suits when it comes to actual leadership of a real rebellion of any kind.


45 posted on 05/05/2013 6:37:02 AM PDT by Nextrush (A BALANCED BUDGET NOW AND PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN ARE MY DREAMS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
Some people talked about civil disobedience to oppose the removal of the monument but others agrued against it like columnist David Limbaugh.

Dave Limbaugh expressed his concern that disobedience of the court ruling non-violently would lead to violent disobedience of the court rulings which of course would be violent disobedience of the law.

Historical precedents exist for his argument, like the non-violent civil rights protests. Fifty years ago this weekend the tactics of Bull Connor in Birmingham produced pictures that caused great sympathy among whites outside the South and a nationwide anger among blacks. The black crowd watching the dogs and hoses assault the protestors in Birmingham was so angry they threw rocks at the police and firemen.

The stage was set for a rising tide of violent nationwide race riots that began within weeks and lasted until around 1970.

With the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and '60s, it is clear that moral authority did not rest with the segregationists.

On the other hand, moral authority nowadays does rest with those who would resist a tyrranical federal government.

46 posted on 05/05/2013 10:49:24 AM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist (Democrats believe in discussing the full spectrum of ideas, all the way from far left to center-left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson