a group of states creating a 2A "compact"

a group of states creating a 2A "compact"

This is a discussion on a group of states creating a 2A "compact" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Not sure if this will fly. I haven't seen a printed copy of this proposal yet. It shouldn't be necessary for this to happen but ...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: a group of states creating a 2A "compact"

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array NECCdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    2,149

    a group of states creating a 2A "compact"

    Not sure if this will fly. I haven't seen a printed copy of this proposal yet. It shouldn't be necessary for this to happen but it seems to be a "free-for-all" out there. But as long as individual states or group(s) of states can establish their own laws things like this will continue to occur. It seems like every town, city, county and state wants to have their own set of laws. It makes it difficult for us to know what is legal.

    https://www.full30.com/watch/MDI0MzA...ment-sanctuary
    “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” ― Benjamin Franklin

    Microwave radio technicians are fully deviated.
    FCC Radiotelephone and amateur radio licensed.
    Member SAF, GOA, NFOA, USCCA

  2. #2
    VIP Member
    Array ShooterGranny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Southeast USA
    Posts
    7,024
    A ray of hope?
    The Old Anglo likes this.
    Getting old was not on my list of "things to do" in the Golden Years!

    ==================
    Talking to each other here is good, but taking action is better.

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Novarider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,814
    This looks to be the full text of the law. I don't like this part tho.

    "WHEREAS, Article 3, Section 12, of the Constitution of the State of Mississippi provides "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."

    If they wanted to be a true sanctuary state they need to pass constitutional carry and abolish all gun free zones. Several states not in this allow carry in government buildings and there aren't any problems.


    HB 753 (As Introduced) - 2020 Regular Session
    airslot likes this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array BlackJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    821
    I think it is great, however I do wish that ti did not specifically limit itself to "Southern States"

    Bill Title: Interstate Compact on Second Amendment Sactuary; authorize State of MS to enter into with other southern states.

  6. #5
    Member Array Conundrum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Gulf Coast MS
    Posts
    240
    We did pass constitutional carry a couple of years ago... One of the few times I'm proud to say I live in Mississippi.

    Unfortunately gun free zones and gun buster signs are still an issue.
    ShooterGranny and airslot like this.
    A gun is like a parachute. If you need it and don't have it, you'll never need it again.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array Stevew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    4,114
    And still getting ignored
    KILTED COWBOY likes this.
    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around laws. Plato

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,747
    More do nothing feel good chest thumping. Unconstitutional on it's face.
    And that is unconstitutional under both the federal constitution and the state constitution.
    Article 3 section 6 of the Mississippi Constitution states,
    The people of this state have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they deem it necessary to their safety and happiness;  Provided, Such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.
    And section 7
    The right to withdraw from the Federal Union on account of any real or supposed grievance, shall never be assumed by this state, nor shall any law be passed in derogation of the paramount allegiance of the citizens of this state to the government of the United States.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,672
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    More do nothing feel good chest thumping. Unconstitutional on it's face.
    And that is unconstitutional under both the federal constitution and the state constitution.
    Article 3 section 6 of the Mississippi Constitution states,

    And section 7
    I am not sure you are right about that. States have entered into many interstate compacts over the years and SCOTUS has ruled them legal. In fact there is a National Center for Interstate Compacts under the Council of State Governments and it manages over a dozen such compacts. One interstate compact, the Driver License Compact, that is the reason someone with a driver's license in any state can drive in any other state. There are compacts regarding electrical transmission lines, marriage licences, educational opportunities for military dependents and others.

    FWIW, sine you mentioned Mississippi, that state and Alabama are in an interstate compact over railroad authority.

    Also, these 2A sanctuary territories are not necessarily negating federal law. They cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law within their jurisdiction. But SCOTUS has held in multiple cases that states and localities have no responsibility to direct resources to enforce federal law if they choose not to.
    airslot and Hoganbeg like this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,747
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post

    I am not sure you are right about that. States have entered into many interstate compacts over the years and SCOTUS has ruled them legal. In fact there is a National Center for Interstate Compacts under the Council of State Governments and it manages over a dozen such compacts. One interstate compact, the Driver License Compact, that is the reason someone with a driver's license in any state can drive in any other state. There are compacts regarding electrical transmission lines, marriage licences, educational opportunities for military dependents and others.

    FWIW, sine you mentioned Mississippi, that state and Alabama are in an interstate compact over railroad authority.

    Also, these 2A sanctuary territories are not necessarily negating federal law. They cannot prevent the federal government from enforcing federal law within their jurisdiction. But SCOTUS has held in multiple cases that states and localities have no responsibility to direct resources to enforce federal law if they choose not to.
    Yes interstate compacts are legal. Yes any state can refuse to allow it's resources to be used to enforce federal laws. That is all beyond question.
    What states can not do, which this bill specifically states, is to declare federal laws as unenforceable within their jurisdiction.
    House Bill 753
    AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO ENTER INTO AN INTERSTATE COMPACT WITH SOUTHERN STATES FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING AS SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY STATES; TO ESTABLISH THE INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY AND PRESCRIBE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; TO EXEMPT CERTAIN FIREARMS, FIREARM ACCESSORIES AND AMMUNITION IN THIS STATE FROM FEDERAL REGULATION;
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Novarider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Yes interstate compacts are legal. Yes any state can refuse to allow it's resources to be used to enforce federal laws. That is all beyond question.
    What states can not do, which this bill specifically states, is to declare federal laws as unenforceable within their jurisdiction.
    Why can't they? Immigration sanctuary states and cities do it every day.

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,672
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Yes interstate compacts are legal. Yes any state can refuse to allow it's resources to be used to enforce federal laws. That is all beyond question.
    What states can not do, which this bill specifically states, is to declare federal laws as unenforceable within their jurisdiction.
    Technically true, but states have essentially done the same with marijuana laws and are openly getting away with it. A 2013 Justice Department memo said state marijuana laws effectively made federal law unenforceable due to lack of resources and low priority and the DOJ would only take action in extenuating circumstances. States and cities have done something similar with immigration laws. They can't prevent the feds from enforcing immigration laws, but they can effectively make immigration laws unenforceable in those areas. They have even actively interfered with ICE operations and not been called to account for it.

    The 2A compact law cites 2A, 9A, 10A and the Commerce Clause as backup for their action and indicates the AGs of the compact states will fight for the compact in federal court, as AGs have for marijuana and immigration laws. The so-called federal "Supremacy Clause" sounds ominous, but in actual practice, a state or locality can make federal law unenforceable.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    2,593
    Like minded states banding together in defense of a threat to their way of life.
    Does it remind you of something?

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    33,420
    Quote Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY View Post
    Like minded states banding together in defense of a threat to their way of life.
    Does it remind you of something?
    DCF?
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    DCF?
    Florida Dept of Children and families?

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,747
    Kansas passed similar legislation in 2013. See how well it worked for these guys.
    https://apnews.com/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •