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!
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/backlash-gun-control-laws-nullified/
http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/06/backlash-gun-control-laws-nullified/
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
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.
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...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.
Read the bolded part. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)Printz vs. United States said: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.
Looks like the BATF has accomplished what it set out to do. Scare you.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.
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.
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.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.
Rebellion with out shots being fired. I like it.
Show me cases in which the state PREVENTED a Federal agency from enforcing a federal law and won.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.
I already did in Printz vs. United States.Show me cases in which the state PREVENTED a Federal agency from enforcing a federal law and won.
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.I already did in Printz vs. United States.
Why would you think BATF set out to scare me, or that I have anything to be scared of from them.Looks like the BATF has accomplished what it set out to do. Scare you.
Wow, talk about emotional & psychological projection?
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.
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.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.
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.
Butt kissing government anti gunners won't like it.Those idiots are the one's who are simply put are ,to stupid to understand,our rights shall not be infringed.Debating them,is like talking to a wall.I wouldn't waste 5 mins with them..
The liberals in Iowa City, Iowa, passed a city ordinance making their city a nuclear weapon free zone....
They all feel good about their little declaration....
Like these local nullifications, and just like "gun free zone" laws... It's feel good law making....
Tastes great-less filling.
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
They all feel good about their little declaration....
Like these local nullifications, and just like "gun free zone" laws... It's feel good law making....
Tastes great-less filling.
Yeah, I got tapatalk, too. So what?
Read more at Backlash! Gun-control laws nullifiedWhen a peace officer refuses to enforce an unconstitutional act,” Peroutka said, “the peace officer is not breaking the law, but upholding the law.”
Peroutka quoted the 1886 Supreme Court decision Norton v. Shelby County: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties, affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
He further quoted the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”
“These [gun-control measures] are not laws,” Peroutka concluded. “They are unconstitutional acts. You have the authority and duty to nullify this.”
That pretty much sums it up, of course there will always be those that will throw a fit and claim that it just aint so.
We've all heard the arguments that its not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so. I say that people that actually believe that have been brainwashed to the point of being nothing more than useful idiots.
I don't need some old coots wearing black robes to tell me what it right and what is wrong. Some would have you believe that if they said it was OK to jump off of a cliff that it would be OK to do so.
These clowns have been doing exactly that, making decisions that are basically telling this country and everyone in it that it is OK to jump off a cliff and I for one am tired of it. Others are tired of it. Anyone that is paying attention is getting tired of it. The States are getting tired of it. That is why we are seeing more and more legislation being passed that basically tells the Feds to take a hike.
It's about time.
I take exception. I have yet to find a use for idiots.being nothing more than useful idiots.
Hot Guns, there is something you are completely missing. It is one thing to not enforce a law. It is yet another thing to interfereRead more at Backlash! Gun-control laws nullified
That pretty much sums it up, of course there will always be those that will throw a fit and claim that it just aint so.
We've all heard the arguments that its not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so. I say that people that actually believe that have been brainwashed to the point of being nothing more than useful idiots.
I don't need some old coots wearing black robes to tell me what it right and what is wrong. Some would have you believe that if they said it was OK to jump off of a cliff that it would be OK to do so.
These clowns have been doing exactly that, making decisions that are basically telling this country and everyone in it that it is OK to jump off a cliff and I for one am tired of it. Others are tired of it. Anyone that is paying attention is getting tired of it. The States are getting tired of it. That is why we are seeing more and more legislation being passed that basically tells the Feds to take a hike.
It's about time.
with those who are enforcing a law.
MO can nullify all it wants, and Kansas can "criminalize" all it wants, but if any person in either state interferes with
a Federal Officer doing their job under Federal law (and it doesn't matter if the topic is guns or biscuit recipes) that person
doing the interference becomes a criminal in the eyes of the Federal Government.
So, for example, let's say your state "nullifies" as MO has. A BATF Agent comes to your place of business to review
your records as has happened in the past. You refuse to comply and state that Arkansas passed a nullification law and he has no
right to do what he is doing.
He comes back with a Federal Search Warrant. You use force to make sure you don't comply.
In which of the following places do you think you will be living-- if you make it out of
that situation alive: 1) Leavenworth 2) SuperMax 3) The minimum security Federal Prison in my town 4) Gitmo 5) Allenwood, PA, 6) Victorville, CA 7) Yankton, South Dakota.
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Defensive Carry
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
SatCong
1070 Replies
OldVet
478 Replies
LimaCharlie
257 Replies
