Defensive Carry banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,269 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
Ah... did you read what the act says? It reads more like a political stunt. I mean, it states the obvious, whether there is an order or not, and no matter what amendment of the constitution we are speaking of. But the biggest question is, who decides if it "violates the 2nd amendment?" The state supreme court? The governor? Each individual sheriff?

They had to write it this way because it leaves everything open ended, sounds great, plays well to voters... but in the end... probably not very meaningful other than to make a statement.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 2 Section 1. Title 1, chapter 2, article 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, 3 is amended by adding section 1-272, to read: 4 1-272. Sovereign authority; right of the people to keep and 5 bear arms 6 PURSUANT TO THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF THIS STATE AND ARTICLE II, 7 SECTION 3, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: 8 1. AN ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR REGULATION OF THE UNITED 9 STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 10 UNITED STATES IS NULL, VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE IN THIS STATE. 11 2. THIS STATE AND ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE ARE 12 PROHIBITED FROM USING ANY PERSONNEL OR FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO ENFORCE, 13 ADMINISTER OR COOPERATE WITH ANY ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR 14 REGULATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF 15 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 16 Sec. 2. Short title 17 This act may be cited as the "2nd Amendment Firearm Freedom Act".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Ah... did you read what the act says? It reads more like a political stunt. I mean, it states the obvious, whether there is an order or not, and no matter what amendment of the constitution we are speaking of. But the biggest question is, who decides if it "violates the 2nd amendment?" The state supreme court? The governor? Each individual sheriff?

They had to write it this way because it leaves everything open ended, sounds great, plays well to voters... but in the end... probably not very meaningful other than to make a statement.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 2 Section 1. Title 1, chapter 2, article 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, 3 is amended by adding section 1-272, to read: 4 1-272. Sovereign authority; right of the people to keep and 5 bear arms 6 PURSUANT TO THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF THIS STATE AND ARTICLE II, 7 SECTION 3, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: 8 1. AN ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR REGULATION OF THE UNITED 9 STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 10 UNITED STATES IS NULL, VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE IN THIS STATE. 11 2. THIS STATE AND ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE ARE 12 PROHIBITED FROM USING ANY PERSONNEL OR FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO ENFORCE, 13 ADMINISTER OR COOPERATE WITH ANY ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR 14 REGULATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF 15 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 16 Sec. 2. Short title 17 This act may be cited as the "2nd Amendment Firearm Freedom Act".
Exactly what I was thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,674 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Ah... did you read what the act says? It reads more like a political stunt. I mean, it states the obvious, whether there is an order or not, and no matter what amendment of the constitution we are speaking of. But the biggest question is, who decides if it "violates the 2nd amendment?" The state supreme court? The governor? Each individual sheriff?

They had to write it this way because it leaves everything open ended, sounds great, plays well to voters... but in the end... probably not very meaningful other than to make a statement.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: 2 Section 1. Title 1, chapter 2, article 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, 3 is amended by adding section 1-272, to read: 4 1-272. Sovereign authority; right of the people to keep and 5 bear arms 6 PURSUANT TO THE SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF THIS STATE AND ARTICLE II, 7 SECTION 3, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: 8 1. AN ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR REGULATION OF THE UNITED 9 STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 10 UNITED STATES IS NULL, VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE IN THIS STATE. 11 2. THIS STATE AND ALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS STATE ARE 12 PROHIBITED FROM USING ANY PERSONNEL OR FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO ENFORCE, 13 ADMINISTER OR COOPERATE WITH ANY ACT, LAW, TREATY, ORDER, RULE OR 14 REGULATION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT THAT VIOLATES AMENDMENT II OF 15 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. 16 Sec. 2. Short title 17 This act may be cited as the "2nd Amendment Firearm Freedom Act".
Would you rather they did nothing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,536 Posts
But the biggest question is, who decides if it "violates the 2nd amendment?" The state supreme court? The governor? Each individual sheriff?
Pretty simple really. Does it infringe on the right to keep and bear arms? If so, it violates the 2nd amendment. That's the way the founders intended it to be decided. Not by any level of government.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,876 Posts
To the best of my knowledge, this legislation was proposed by the AZ Citizens' Defense League, one of the most proactive grass roots RKBA activist organizations in the country. They are no dummies, they are effectively "embedded" in our legislature (i.e., knowing the process but not twisting arms) and are not prone to meaningless political posturing. I am confident that this legislation has been vetted for effectiveness within Arizona's judicial processes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,382 Posts
So a state not allowing any state resources to be used enacting federal gun laws it deems unconstitutional is a bad thing?
This means no state law enforcement personnel and no state tax funds.
Just another barrier the fed's will have to breach and they ain't got enough ATF guys to go enforce them in every state that does this if the local guys tell them to pound sand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Here in Missouri our Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB85) has been approved by the house and is awaiting approval by the senate general laws committee. After that it should be approved by the senate and signed by governor Parson.

Among other provisions it prohibits local LE from enforcing federal gun laws and regulations.

A good step to restoring the balance of power between the several states and the federal government. Resist!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Here in Missouri our Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB85) has been approved by the house and is awaiting approval by the senate general laws committee. After that it should be approved by the senate and signed by governor Parson.

Among other provisions it prohibits local LE from enforcing federal gun laws and regulations.

A good step to restoring the balance of power between the several states and the federal government. Resist!!!
Just breaking...senate general laws committee voted “Do Pass!”

This bill is on the fast track now. GO MO!!!


 
  • Like
Reactions: KILTED COWBOY
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top