|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 26, 2013, 10:19 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
Bill will reject additional federal gun regulation in KY
The bill passed the Senate overwhelmingly and now goes to the house.
Perhaps some of this might help Kentuckians breathe a little easier. Although it is often touted that State laws cannot trump Federal laws, It would still make it very difficult for the federal government to operate against gun owners without state participation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKIX1xf-Js |
February 26, 2013, 11:51 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
Quote:
This MAY sound far fetched, but look to Colorado's legalization of marijuana for an example. Under amendment 64 to their state constitution, marijuana is legal, BUT according to the federal Controlled Substances Act, it is still illegal to smoke it. Now, according to a memo released by the DOJ in 2009, “The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States.” However, Obama is quoted as saying, "It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal." Furthermore, I dare say that Obama's statement could be applied to "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines. After all, my baseball bat is for recreational use until I club someone with it in defense just as my AR-15 is for recreational use until I defend myself with it. Both, I might add, are state approved. Maybe that is a stretch of logic, but the point is still not null. If my state deems "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines legal, I should be allowed to use them because my state has determined that it is legal. Even if that is still too much of a stretch in political thinking, my state will not enforce it, and I don't believe that it will be made a top priority for the relatively few federal agents to camp out at my local range to confiscate my AR-15 upon entering. Eat your words, Mr.President. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2322101.html http://www.colorado.gov/dpa/doit/arc...ion/index.html http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/...192602871.html My very own brain!!!
__________________
Semper Fi Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms |
|
February 27, 2013, 09:23 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
|
way to go KY !
Could you send some of that MOJO to Connecticut ?
__________________
**** NRA Life Member ***** Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box, Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy" |
February 27, 2013, 04:20 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
Oregon could use a triple dose.
|
February 27, 2013, 11:33 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
It makes a statement but will have no direct effect. It purports to make certain new federal firearms laws and regulations "unenforceable" in Kentucky. State and local police officers do not enforce the federal firearms laws now. They cannot enforce any federal law. That is up to the federal agents and this bill will not effect them.
|
|
|