2A - band together with other states to defy certain federal gun control regulations.

This is a discussion on 2A - band together with other states to defy certain federal gun control regulations. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Real Title: Conservative lawmakers in Missouri are hoping to band together with other states to defy certain federal gun control regulations. .......Missouri's latest proposal, introduced ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
Like Tree85Likes

Thread: 2A - band together with other states to defy certain federal gun control regulations.

  1. #1
    Ex Member Array ANGLICO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    I'm the guy next door that is polite, but does not tell you crap.
    Posts
    3,570

    2A - band together with other states to defy certain federal gun control regulations.

    Real Title: Conservative lawmakers in Missouri are hoping to band together with other states to defy certain federal gun control regulations.

    .......Missouri's latest proposal, introduced this past week, would attempt to nullify certain federal gun control regulations from being enforced in the state and subject law enforcement officers to criminal and civil penalties for carrying out such policies.

    The state's Republican-led Legislature came one vote shy of overriding Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of such a measure last year. This year's bill adds a new twist, delaying the effective date for several years to allow time for other states to join the cause.

    "We continue to see the federal government overreach their rightful bounds, and if we can create a situation where we have some unity among states, then I think it puts us in a better position to make that argument," said Republican Sen. Brian Nieves, who is sponsoring the legislation.

    Lawmakers plot new strategy for defying gun laws

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Distinguished Member Array RightsEroding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,268
    Supporters believe it will be more difficult for the federal government to shrug off such statutes if more states act together.
    I smell a rat.

    "The state will never trump federal laws," said Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a St. Louis Democrat. "It is again another right wing Republican attempt to go Second Amendment crazy."
    I smell a rat.

    The marijuana comparison is not a good comparison as the FED will not intervene as (they) whoever (they) is, wants it's subjects medicated to the point where they can no longer think or fight.

    I am getting a whiff of Missouri falling prey to yet another socialist game designed to place good "looking" reinforcing bricks in the foundation that will crack under pressure and destroy
    much of the foundation that (WAS) good.

    Start thinking like a socialist coward to win this war.

    To quote Patton from the movie.."Rommel, you magnificent Ba@**$@!; I read your book!"
    NONAME762 and gatorbait51 like this.
    "When those who are governed do too little, those who govern can, and will, do too much." Ronald Reagan

    Do what you can; then do what you must

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    "The state will never trump federal laws," said Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, a St. Louis Democrat. "It is again another right wing Republican attempt to go Second Amendment crazy."
    LOL - The 2nd IS "Fed Law" someone needs to do a better job of understanding the COTUS & BOR LIMITS THE FEDS and ALL rights not specifically granted are reserved for the States & the PEOPLE .......
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  5. #4
    Distinguished Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    1,992
    States rights is a commie plot now?

    Brilliant!
    Hopyard and gatorbait51 like this.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    States rights is a commie plot now?

    Brilliant!
    WHAT????

    Perhaps you need to read what I actually stated again (and again?) the COTUS & BOR are all about FREEDOM - nothing "commie " (or plot) to be found there at all...... In fact States Rights are mentioned to forbid Central Gov control (which could possibly be a "commie plot" )
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array dV8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    810
    Quote Originally Posted by ANGLICO View Post
    Real Title: Conservative lawmakers in Missouri are hoping to band together with other states to defy certain federal gun control regulations.

    .......Missouri's latest proposal, introduced this past week, would attempt to nullify certain federal gun control regulations from being enforced in the state and subject law enforcement officers to criminal and civil penalties for carrying out such policies.

    The state's Republican-led Legislature came one vote shy of overriding Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon's veto of such a measure last year. This year's bill adds a new twist, delaying the effective date for several years to allow time for other states to join the cause.

    "We continue to see the federal government overreach their rightful bounds, and if we can create a situation where we have some unity among states, then I think it puts us in a better position to make that argument," said Republican Sen. Brian Nieves, who is sponsoring the legislation.

    Lawmakers plot new strategy for defying gun laws
    A great concept but lets remind them that it is BEST to have a smaller Fed with less control and fewer laws, letting the States make these decisions.
    This makes it more difficult to achieve uniformity but not impossible and better for all in the long haul.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
    Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
    Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array wdbailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    577
    Yes because we all know that if a bunch of states band together just like some did back in 1860 that the Feds will be unable to do a thing right?
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    Back then they had a leader the troops respected and he respected Them - not the case today and as memory serves it was far from a "slam dunk" even then
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array wdbailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    577
    I've said it before and I'll say it again. If your plans success depends in any part on mutiny by forces for the opposition then you really need to rethink your plans
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    Back then they had a leader the troops respected and he respected Them - not the case today and as memory serves it was far from a "slam dunk" even then
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    "WHAT plans" do you keep thinking I have ? .

    And more importantly WHY do you insist on things not stated ?????

    I made a statement of fact on state's rights- NO "mutiny" was Ever mentioned - where you came up with that was totally without any help from me .

    YOU mentioned a time from the past- please tell me what you think I said that is not true???? Thanks

    I guess you'd say that KY passing a law making it illegal for anyone (including Feds) to confiscate weapons even under "emergency orders" etc. - mutiny? Funny that falls under state rights as clearly stated in the COTUS - which I happen to believe IS law

    Rather than some fixation on the falsehood I'm talking mutiny how about some focus on the Treason that is when this Regime along with certain members of Congress disgrace our soldiers after all they sacrifice - THEN calling them terrorists and trying to disarm them for nothing more than they served ????? How'd that be?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,628
    So now some participants here think it is just fine for a few states to band together to openly defy Federal law and attempt to thwart Federal Law enforcement. The MO leg. saved themselves from themselves by one vote, they now want to ensnare other state legislatures into some sort of conspiracy to
    commit rebellion.

    Someone needs to slip lots of anti-psychotic meds in the food at the MO legislature's cafeteria. They have become downright
    delusional.

    The only polite way to describe their behavior is extremely "unwise."
    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

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    C'mon now Hop seriously " attempt to thwart Federal Law enforcement" -

    WHAT authority do you "think" Fed law enforcement HAS over any state??? Please cite from the COTUS

    It seems despite our laws you would prefer one Central all powerful Fed Gov forcing their will upon the Citizens and the States

    You can continue to ignore the COTUS all you'd like but the only power the Fed Gov has are clearly defined - ALL other powers and rights are the States AND the People which is also very clearly stated - that is fact not opinion

    into some sort of conspiracy to
    commit rebellion.
    Where EXACTLY do you find this???

    They have become downright delusional.
    Seems I recall Texas threatening to leave the Union .....
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    That only works if the feds allow it to work. Like in Colorado, if a new President is elected and decides that Pot is "evil", they could have the DEA come in and arrest ever shop owner on distribution charges. It would be legal in the state but still illegal under federal law.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,582
    Once again the untrue assumption that FED laws always trump state laws, WHERE in the COTUS does it say "regulation of weed"?

    IF it's Not specifically grated to the FEDS they don't have the power - that is simple and quite clear ; the PEOPLE voted to legalize it- which IS under their power according to COTUS

    IF anyone "sent the DEA in" it would be illegal and beyond the scope of power - seems that no longer matters to some folks though - including the current Regime - but it's still a fact

    WHAT do you suspect would happen IF the DEA got sent in and were met with every LEO in CO telling them they will be arrested if they don't leave? Just HOW many DEA agents do you suppose can be sent to do all this???

    The CO LEO are SWORN to uphold CO laws are they not?

    Quote Originally Posted by OutWestSystems View Post
    That only works if the feds allow it to work. Like in Colorado, if a new President is elected and decides that Pot is "evil", they could have the DEA come in and arrest ever shop owner on distribution charges. It would be legal in the state but still illegal under federal law.
    A bit more specific one "loophole" that has been wildly abused is the Commerce Clause since CO is not trafficking interstate "that dog will not hunt" in this example IOW CO is not engaging in interstate commerce so the CC cannot be abused here
    Ghost1958 and gatorbait51 like this.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array wdbailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    577
    What exactly is wrong with you people?

    There was a bloody Civil War that settled whether the Fed's power superceded that of the States.

    The Constitution has a Supremacy Clause expressing this

    the Nullification argument is nearly 200 years old now and it's never won the debate.

    The last time "States Rights" was pushed it was to oppose desgregation back in the '60's and it went nowhere

    All the airheads who've been elected to state legislatures who blather on about it are morons who've been bought and paid for by people who don't care how stupid they look because they know they can always buy more just like them

    This is a non-starter and I don't care what sort of warm, fuzzy , "patriotic" feelings you may get from it it isn't going to go anyplace good.
    keboostman and Hopyard like this.

Page 1 of 5 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
  •