MO to challenge state's rights vs. federal.

This is a discussion on MO to challenge state's rights vs. federal. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; FOX News - Top Stories - GUN RIGHTS BATTLE Mo. Poised to Enact Law Nullifying Federal Rules - Page 1 of 6...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32
Like Tree11Likes

Thread: MO to challenge state's rights vs. federal.

  1. #1
    Member Array knight65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    127

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,348
    The state can pass whatever law they want. This issue will not be resolved in state legislature, but in court rooms.
    Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.

    USAF Retired
    NRA Life Member

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,866
    Quote Originally Posted by archer51 View Post
    This issue will not be resolved in state legislature, but in court rooms.
    Perhaps not even there. Clearly the state is saying, "we don't recognize your authority". Do you think they would be any more likely to recognize judicial authority, especially if it didn't go there way?
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,718
    State's Rights? STATE'S RIGHTS?!? Seems to me that's the clearest current example of constitutional malfeasance in Washington DC.
    knight65 likes this.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    A state has ever right to not enforce a law it find objectionable, it also has every right to take that objection to the Federal Courts. They do not have the right to make criminal actions taken by Federal agents in performance of their duties enforcing federal laws.
    wdbailey likes this.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,946
    Entire state legislatures are not passing laws defying the Feds unconstitutional authority over guns with the intention of letting the Feds have the say if that law sticks or not. If they had that intention why pass the law. They know up front the Feds will try to say its not legal to do.

    Those who keep saying this will be settled in the courts need to think a little harder. I have no doubt that it will land in Federal court. Does anyone really think state legislatures are going to fire up this law and their gun owning populations and LE just to allow the Feds to say "NO you cant do that" and go along with it??

    They arent stupid enough to not know that this going to Federal courts is the same as letting the fox decide if the hen house door is left open or closed overnight.

    Things are changing and I think that the Feds days of legislation from SCOTUS over the states for fundamental and plainly stated Constitutional rights are over. A lot of states are on board to different degrees. If the Fed doesnt back off soon I think a constitutional convention is in our future. In that case the Feds are irrelevant as is SCOTUS. And they know it.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,718
    Entire state legislatures are not passing laws defying the Feds unconstitutional authority...
    Well, there's sure a bunch of states doing EXACTLY that regarding marijuana laws.
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Well, there's sure a bunch of states doing EXACTLY that regarding marijuana laws.
    And ask Washington state how that worked, when the Feds came in and busted a bunch of folks.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Well, there's sure a bunch of states doing EXACTLY that regarding marijuana laws.
    Yes they are as they are with guns. The Fed has pushed and pushed almost since its forming taking away liberties our constitution guarantees. It is inevitable that at some point it will push to far. I believe that these moves by the states are the first rumblings of a backlash against what is swiftly becoming an intolerable out of control Federal government.

    When that backlash comes free states which are the majority of them, will care not one whit about what the Feds or SCOTUS says. The states ultimately have the upper hand in that they can stop the FED in its tracks with a constitutional convention and make it irrelevant to anything that happens after that point.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    And ask Washington state how that worked, when the Feds came in and busted a bunch of folks.
    The Constitution doesnt guarantee the right to have weed, or get high. Though its been demonized to a point of being stupid.
    Violating 2A and taking away somebodies doobies are two different things.

    The states ultimately have the upper hand if driven to that point. Legally and Constitutionally. The states know it and the Feds know it. I dont see this going away with a Federal court decision. There are too many states with the same outlook on the Feds power grabbing ways.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    And ask Washington state how that worked, when the Feds came in and busted a bunch of folks.
    IIRC nobody was arrested,they took some product and their business books prior to taking it before a grand jury
    Hopyard likes this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,643
    [T]he General Assembly of the State of Vermont do highly disapprove of the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia as being unconstitutional in their nature and dangerous in their tendency. It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general [federal] government, this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union. 29 (emphasis added) WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Limiting an Overreaching Federal Government: Is State Nullification the Solution?
    __________________________________________________ __________________

    The Legislature of Massachusetts….deem it their duty solemnly to declare that while they hold sacred the principle that the consent of the people is the only pure source of just and legitimate power, they cannot admit the right of the state legislatures to denounce the administration of that [federal] government to which the people themselves, by a solemn compact [the Constitution], have exclusively committed their national concerns….That the people in that solemn compact (which is declared to be the supreme law of the land [Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution]), have not constituted the state legislatures the judges of the acts or measures of the federal government. 31

    Should the respectable state of Virginia persist in the assumption of the right to declare the acts of the national government unconstitutional, and should she oppose successfully her force and will to those of the nation, the Constitution would be reduced to a mere cipher – to the form and pageantry of authority without the energy of power. Every act of the federal government which thwarted the views or checked the ambitious projects of a particular state or of its leading and influential members would be the object of opposition and of remonstrance, while the people – convulsed and confused by the conflict between two hostile jurisdictions and enjoying the protection of neither – would be wearied into a submission to some bold leader who would establish himself on the ruins of both
    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 Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    [T]he General Assembly of the State of Vermont do highly disapprove of the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia as being unconstitutional in their nature and dangerous in their tendency. It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general [federal] government, this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union. 29 (emphasis added) WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Limiting an Overreaching Federal Government: Is State Nullification the Solution?
    __________________________________________________ __________________

    The Legislature of Massachusetts….deem it their duty solemnly to declare that while they hold sacred the principle that the consent of the people is the only pure source of just and legitimate power, they cannot admit the right of the state legislatures to denounce the administration of that [federal] government to which the people themselves, by a solemn compact [the Constitution], have exclusively committed their national concerns….That the people in that solemn compact (which is declared to be the supreme law of the land [Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution]), have not constituted the state legislatures the judges of the acts or measures of the federal government. 31
    __________________________________________________ _______

    Should the respectable state of Virginia persist in the assumption of the right to declare the acts of the national government unconstitutional, and should she oppose successfully her force and will to those of the nation, the Constitution would be reduced to a mere cipher – to the form and pageantry of authority without the energy of power. Every act of the federal government which thwarted the views or checked the ambitious projects of a particular state or of its leading and influential members would be the object of opposition and of remonstrance, while the people – convulsed and confused by the conflict between two hostile jurisdictions and enjoying the protection of neither – would be wearied into a submission to some bold leader who would establish himself on the ruins of both
    Hop three states in the NE. 30 odd states take an entirely different view nowadays. As expressed by legislations either passed totally or passed by the senate and laying in wait in the house such as my own state.

    The Fed has its powers laid out for it. Passing unconstitutional laws isnt one of them. SCOTUS saying something is constitutional when it plainly isnt does not magically make it so.

    SCOTUS reverses itself according to its political make up all the time. It has no business interpreting the constitution and the 2A because one it never makes up its mind and stays there. and Two 2A expressly forbids it from interpreting it.

    Writing is on the wall im afraid. The Feds can stand if they give up this we are the last say on everything everywhere legal or not stance. If they dont the states will eventually, legally and constitutionally neuter them. These laws being passed now are just warning shots across the bow.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    Hop three states in the NE. 30 odd states take an entirely different view nowadays. .
    That was in 1799, and NO state supported the VA and KY resolution. What I posted (so far) is a total of the opposition to the
    reasoning by 4 states at the time.

    Now, there are no 30 odd states which have taken nullification positions of the sort MO has on the table-- which would put it
    in open rebellion by criminalizing Federal law enforcement. All theory aside, do you really think we can remain The United
    States "one nation indivisible" if each state can criminalize the laws of the central government as it so chooses?

    We can't. And that is why MO's legislature is dangerous to our nation (and of course unconstitutional in the extreme). See my signature line.
    __________________________________________________ _________

    ^ The seven states that transmitted formal rejections were Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont. See Elliot, Jonathan (1907) [1836]. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 4 (expanded 2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. 538–539. ISBN 0-8337-1038-9.

    Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey passed resolutions that disapproved the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, but these states did not transmit formal responses to Kentucky and Virginia. Anderson, Frank Maloy (1899). "Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions". American Historical

    Madison, 303. At least six states responded to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions by stating that the power to declare a law unconstitutional rested in the federal judiciary, not the states. For example, Vermont's resolution stated: "It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union." Elliot, Jonathan (1907) [1836]. "Answers of the Several State Legislatures: State of Vermont". Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 4 (expanded 2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. 538–539. ISBN 0-8337-1038-9.. The other states taking the position that the constitutionality of federal laws is a question for the federal courts, not the states, were New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. The Governor of Delaware also took this position. Anderson, Frank Maloy (1899). "Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions". American Historical Review. pp. 45–63, 225–244.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_of_1800

    And there you have it-- the opinion of founders and those closest to them. Even Jefferson, though he was behind the VA and Kentucky resolutions for the purpose of political mischief making, didn't actually believe the states could nullify; and wrote against that proposition--
    I've done the work but I'm not going to look that last one up for you; I'll say it again. Jefferson
    was against nullification and against the proposition that states had authority to determine the
    constitutionality of the actions of the general government. Nor did Madison hold that view either, however misconstrued both of these people are by modern day revisionists.
    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
    Ex Member Array Bullet1234's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    963
    " a constitutional convention " I would vote for THAT.

Page 1 of 3 123 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

gun laws federal vs state

,

gun rights state vs federal

,

missouri states rights vs federal gun laws

,

state of missouri gun rioghts vs federal government

,

state vs federal law august 2013

,

states vs federal rights

Click on a term to search for related topics.