Will the States fight back?

This is a discussion on Will the States fight back? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Doodle Oh no! You gave up our state for a woman! I am rapidly losing respect for ya expat! JK JK It ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Will the States fight back?

  1. #31
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    Oh no! You gave up our state for a woman! I am rapidly losing respect for ya expat! JK JK
    It gets worse, she wouldn't travel back so my children could be born there and her OB absolutely refused to let me bring a box of Texas soil in to the delivery room so she could stand on it! It's a sick world we're livin' in...
    atctimmy, Hopyard, Doodle and 1 others like this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,352
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    It gets worse, she wouldn't travel back so my children could be born there and her OB absolutely refused to let me bring a box of Texas soil in to the delivery room so she could stand on it! It's a sick world we're livin' in...
    Now that is funny.
    Mark Twain:
    The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a
    patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

  4. #33
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    It gets worse, she wouldn't travel back so my children could be born there and her OB absolutely refused to let me bring a box of Texas soil in to the delivery room so she could stand on it! It's a sick world we're livin' in...
    Well I married a sweet girl originally from Nebraska (one of them square ones north of here)...but our daughter is a bonafied Texan and in February our son will be too!
    TX expat and atctimmy like this.

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array bklynboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    567
    One of the things a state could try is to enlist all of its armed citizens in its state militia or state police thereby exempting those citizens from the AWB. Now that would make for an interesting case in front of the Supremes!

  6. #35
    VIP Member
    Array TX expat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    3,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Doodle View Post
    Well I married a sweet girl originally from Nebraska (one of them square ones north of here)...but our daughter is a bonafied Texan and in February our son will be too!
    Congratulations! That's much better than a box of dirt!
    Doodle likes this.
    NRA Life Member

    "I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady

  7. #36
    Member Array CrowJS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Mathiston MS
    Posts
    122
    Actually, the legislation being introduced this next term protects firearms mannufactured, sold, and remaining in MS from the Inter-state Commerce clause. I haven't had a chance to read the proposed bill yet, so I'm not sure exactly how it reads, but this is the gist. Some other states have similar bills being introduced.

  8. #37
    Ex Member Array Doodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Tomball TX
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Congratulations! That's much better than a box of dirt!
    yes sir!

  9. #38
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    In today's world the "rebellion" by a state will consist of passing laws which go against Federal law and then
    daring Uncle to either sue (as happened in Arizona) or not enforce the Federal law as seems to be what is happening
    in the pro MJ states.
    I think that should anti-gun legislation be passed that this is where the first battles will be fought. I was under the impression that SC was unique in this regard. However, from wikipedia, "Through 2010, resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would nullify federal authority over such local firearms".

    As much as I am an O fan, he is now being quite inconsistent in his approach. He needs to either smack the MJ legalizing states down (even though I'm for a liberal drug policy) else he will be giving up too much Federal authority. It will be hard to go to the Supremes and claim Federal supremacy on anything after letting the MJ stuff slide.
    I think that this goes back to the concept of what the exact role of the Federal govt should be. Even in the context of having a strong federation, it seems as if time and again that Uncle gets in trouble when he tries to regulate activity within the states. I also think that the interstate commerce clause has been abused beyond its intent. Instead of relying on a loose interpretation of interstate commerce, the appropriate method would have been to modify the constitution such that support for desired or needed measures was given. Is this not why we have an amendment process? Of course such actions are not to be taken lightly, which is the intent. On the upside, this would have meant that things like national health care actually received real due process and achieved buy in from the states.

    What this means is that Uncle may well have manipulated itself into a position in which states will gain tremendous power from having legalized MJ; and they may gain more if DOMA goes down in the SC, too. These two issues really turn on how The Supremes will ultimately handle the matter. And decisions made on both issues will influence if not directly affect any state laws on guns which might go against Uncle's laws.
    This is true, but yet again, I think it speaks to the fact that Uncle may have meddled where it shouldn't have and we are seeing the snowball effect. Let me reiterate, I too am for a strong federal govt but I think that this requires a judicious and limited approach with the focus on ensuring that the states all behave and respect each other and the rights of the citizens. An example of a valid regulation is to say that good and people must be allowed to flow unimpeded amongst the states and that one state can't impose tariffs on another. Interestingly, we are also seeing a form of interstate tariff with union and other manufacturing incentives (South Carolina and Boeing for example).

    Note, I don't much approve of state's rights, wish the 10th were "amended" out of existence etc. and that a stronger supremacy clause were added to the constitution, but that's just my viewpoint. Reality is that DOJ needs to be more consistent in policy and not pick battles selectively. And before you all bop me and flame me, isn't state's rights the reason NY, IL, CA, and NJ are pains in the back side for us when we travel?
    Yes, you are correct that "states rights" is the force behind the problem travel states. I also think that this one is akin to the "property rights" claim saying that 'you' can prohibit someone from carrying in your establishment. No matter how you look at it, someone's "rights" are going to get trampled. I think that this is an example of where the Federal govt should step in as it is an interstate issue, I also think that if it were to that it needs to do so in the most limited fashion possible and adhere to Constitution as strictly as possible - in this particular case I think the meaning of the 2nd-A is pretty clear and that these states are violating the articles of federation that they have agreed to and for some reason SCOTUS has been loath to rule on this subject. In this respect, I think that it is also problematic in that SCOTUS has become a partisan entity.

    The bottom line is that if Uncle tries to regulate the people of the states in a manner that the people do not want that it will lead to a form of rebellion. As you've pointed out, this is happening with drugs, marriage, and now guns.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

can i fight back if the government tries to take my guns
,
states backing 2nd amendment
,
states backing the 2nd amendment
,

states fight back

,
when will the states fight back
,
who will fight, second amendment
,
will the states fight the federal govt?
Click on a term to search for related topics.