Nullification of Federal Gun Control law becomes more Heated

This is a discussion on Nullification of Federal Gun Control law becomes more Heated within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Some very good reading since Nullification of Gun laws, through the upholding of many Judicial rulings, is, in my view, entirely Constitutional. http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/06/backla...aws-nullified/...

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 91
Like Tree103Likes

Thread: Nullification of Federal Gun Control law becomes more Heated

  1. #1
    Member Array gtfoxy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    313

    Nullification of Federal Gun Control law becomes more Heated

    Some very good reading since Nullification of Gun laws, through the upholding of many Judicial rulings, is, in my view, entirely Constitutional.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/06/backla...aws-nullified/
    darbo and Eagleks like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    A well informed article that supports nullification of unconstitutional acts. I'm really proud of the sheriffs and peace officers that will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and their state Constitutions while bearing true faith to the same. Bravo!

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,628
    We had a long thread on this. It is well established that nullification is not constitutional. Believe as you wish.

    Let me know if BATF stops working in MO.
    wdbailey and DoctorBob like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #4
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We had a long thread on this. It is well established that nullification is not constitutional. Believe as you wish.

    Let me know if BATF stops working in MO.
    Tell that to the nine clowns dressed in black robes who ruled in Printz vs. United States that nullification is legal. See also Federalist 39 etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by Printz vs. United States
    Although we had no occasion to pass upon the subject in Brown, later opinions of ours have made clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to implement, by legislation or executive action, federal regulatory programs. In Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264 (1981), and FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742 (1982), we sustained statutes against constitutional challenge only after assuring ourselves that they did not require the States to enforce federal law.
    Read the bolded part. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

  6. #5
    Member Array Roon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    MN
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    We had a long thread on this. It is well established that nullification is not constitutional. Believe as you wish.

    Let me know if BATF stops working in MO.
    Looks like the BATF has accomplished what it set out to do. Scare you.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    No state can be forced to implement a Federal Law, they can just choose to not enforce it. The problem is that many state have gone past that and said they will prevent the Federal agencies from enforcing the law. Sorry but that is not allowed. In fact arresting a federal agent that is legally performing their job is going to lead to all kinds of problems.
    Last edited by OutWestSystems; June 5th, 2013 at 02:10 PM.
    Hopyard and mcp1810 like this.

  8. #7
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    No state can be force to implement a Federal Law, they can just choose to not enforce it. The problem is that many state have gone past that and said they will prevent the Federal agencies from enforcing the law. Sorry but that is not allowed. In fact arresting a federal agent that is legally performing their job is going to lead to all kinds of problems.
    It's already been done and went to court over with the federal government losing every single time. The sheriff is the ultimate authority in defense of the Constitution and are obligated to defend it from federal agents that do not have authority inside of state lines. Federal agents can only have authority ie jurisdiction in places the federal government actually owns. Since the federal government does not own the states, with Supreme Court decisions going back 200 years, the states are sovereign within their borders and a legal condition known as dual sovereignty exists. These court cases affirms that under dual sovereignty only the states may act within their borders while the federal government is there upon request or something occurs on federal property.
    GSDSchutzhund and Ghost1958 like this.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Harryball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Lansing Mi
    Posts
    7,075
    Rebellion with out shots being fired. I like it.
    Don"t let stupid be your skill set....

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    It's already been done and went to court over with the federal government losing every single time. The sheriff is the ultimate authority in defense of the Constitution and are obligated to defend it from federal agents that do not have authority inside of state lines. Federal agents can only have authority ie jurisdiction in places the federal government actually owns. Since the federal government does not own the states, with Supreme Court decisions going back 200 years, the states are sovereign within their borders and a legal condition known as dual sovereignty exists. These court cases affirms that under dual sovereignty only the states may act within their borders while the federal government is there upon request or something occurs on federal property.
    Show me cases in which the state PREVENTED a Federal agency from enforcing a federal law and won.

  11. #10
    Member Array ThePatriot1776's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    Show me cases in which the state PREVENTED a Federal agency from enforcing a federal law and won.
    I already did in Printz vs. United States.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    I already did in Printz vs. United States.
    Sorry, but that ruling said that a local or state official or agency wasn't required to enforce a federal law. That had nothing to do with a State or Local official PREVENTING a federal agent from doing their job under the Federal Law.
    Badey likes this.

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Roon View Post
    Looks like the BATF has accomplished what it set out to do. Scare you.
    Why would you think BATF set out to scare me, or that I have anything to be scared of from them.

    Wow, talk about emotional & psychological projection?
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,628
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePatriot1776 View Post
    Tell that to the nine clowns dressed in black robes who ruled in Printz vs. United States that nullification is legal. See also Federalist 39 etc...



    Read the bolded part. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

    Look, what you posted hasn't got a thing to do with nullification. You simply don't get it.
    wdbailey likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,628
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    No state can be force to implement a Federal Law, they can just choose to not enforce it. The problem is that many state have gone past that and said they will prevent the Federal agencies from enforcing the law. Sorry but that is not allowed. In fact arresting a federal agent that is legally performing their job is going to lead to all kinds of problems.
    Yes, long jail sentences. I've repeatedly posted the appropriate USC sections here, but apparently none are so blind as those who will not see.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  16. #15
    Member Array keboostman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax Station Virginia
    Posts
    266
    I can hardly beieve the comments I am reading here. A state cannot nullify a federal law. State officials can refuse to enforce it, but, if the state law enforcement does not enforce it, then federal law enforcement officials will. And, guess what? There are plenty of federal penatentiaries to house those who violate federal law that their states have "nullified". Nullification may make for good political capital, but it won't keep violaters out of jail.
    dben002 and Hopyard like this.

Page 1 of 7 12345 ... LastLast

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

federal gun control law
,
federal law
,

gun control

,
missouri gun law nullification
,
missouri nullification law
,
missouri nullification law goes into effect\
,
the federal osha standards under the oversight of federal osha. the south dakota state plans are also required to cover
Click on a term to search for related topics.