The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 16, 2010, 08:59 AM   #1
gwiley
Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 19
5th state passes gun federal gun exemption

This is good news that a bunch of other states are now trying to pass the same legislation, but we need to get all of them to do so. I wonder if the NRA is working with lawmakers on this?

5th state exempts guns

South Dakota is the newest State to sign this into law.

Montana, Tennessee, Wyoming and Utah have all enacted this legislation.
gwiley is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 10:11 AM   #2
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,855
AZ's working on it! Out of the House into the Senate, stalled a bit due to the budget.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 12:48 PM   #3
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
 
Join Date: April 26, 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.
Neo-aristocrats in Washington, D.C. sneer contemptuously. I wonder how they'd feel if we suddenly sent them less of our hard-earned money to indulge themselves with.
__________________
No tyrant should ever be allowed to die of natural causes.
Standing Wolf is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 12:59 PM   #4
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Also making headway in Alaska, South Carolina and Minnesota.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 02:09 PM   #5
DRice.72
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2009
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 451
Nice!!
__________________
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
Light is faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright unitl you hear them speak!
They should have stopped with "Congress shall make no Law...
DRice.72 is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 10:05 PM   #6
SundownRider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 508
Islamic fundamentalists will share a BLT before Illinois ever considers it.
__________________
" Of every One-Hundred men, Ten shouldn't even be there, Eighty are nothing but targets, Nine are real fighters... We are lucky to have them...They make the battle. Ah, but the One, One of them is a Warrior... and He will bring the others back."
- Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
SundownRider is offline  
Old March 16, 2010, 10:11 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,645
Quote:
Islamic fundamentalists will share a BLT before Illinois ever considers it.
There's a little court challenge going on that might make things a little easier for Illinoisians...
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 17, 2010, 12:25 AM   #8
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
My only concern is the first test case... We all know there will be one within the next few years, and we all know that it will be the Getteysburg of gun rights battles.

Even if every state in the country passes similar law, the test case that goes before the SCOTUS will be where the real showdown begins...

If only laws were passed by the legislative branch and enforced by the judicial branch, wait... Isn't that how it's supposed to be? Oh, yeah.. Instead every law passed by the legislative branch has to be thoroughly vetted and decided on by judges that, IMO, don't have any business messing around with it in the first place...

EDIT: My apologies to all, and thanks to Brent (aka hogdogs) for noticing my rule-breaking slip-up.

To add one more thing: If only laws were written in a clear, cut & dry manner, leaving little to no room for "interpretation" by courts. If only...
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

Last edited by jgcoastie; March 17, 2010 at 01:31 PM.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old March 17, 2010, 09:25 AM   #9
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,553
I'm not so sure there will be a test case for a long time.

Taking the make up of the Roberts Court, I think the Justice department will hold off hoping for a more Fed Friendly Court.

The feds loose this one its gonna open up a whole new can of worms ref. excessive fed powers.

Personaly I'd like to see it go before the Roberts Court to get that Can oppened.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old March 17, 2010, 09:11 PM   #10
VeniVidiVici
Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2010
Location: "The line state" , USA
Posts: 16
I wish one of the states would declare the 1934 NFA act an illegal tax on our rights. Why won't they touch the NFA stuff? I'm sure there is some political BS involved in these bills that we aren't seeing. Still good news I guess.
VeniVidiVici is offline  
Old March 17, 2010, 09:51 PM   #11
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Why won't they touch the NFA stuff?
Because they aren't stupid, they know what they are doing. The one common trait of people who go for "All of nothing" is that they get nothing. Incrementalisim is the name of the game. That is how the Anti's got the import ban and the AWB. You have to beat them at their own game.

Can you honestly imagine politicians trying to pass something overruling the NFA Act in one go? "**** they want to let every child buy machineguns." No way that is gonna fly. If you instead limit it to Title I weapons it becomes much harder to oppose. There is going to be a test case eventually, who do you want as the plaintiff? A 50 year old businessman who owns a machine shop and wants to tinker with single shot, straight pull bolt action 22s or a 22 year old with an open bolt MAC-10 and suppressor? Leaving out Title II weapons is a no-brainer. Having them in doesn't help us in either the short or long term, it hurts us. We have have as much public support as possible.

If things like this pass, it opens the door to NFA later on. If it fails then it doesn't matter, so why have NFA items included?
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 17, 2010, 11:26 PM   #12
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 2,010
Nullification is an old pipe dream. The Constitution clearly says that federal law trumps state law. This is a stupid waste of resources and money better spent in getting laws repealed, changed, or enacted, that are not jousting at windmills.

I have yet to hear anyone tell me exactly which federal law is it that should be nullified, other than all of them. Which is never going to happen. If you want to hand the anti-gun crowd something to rally to and the federal government a reason to crack down, keep passing nullification acts.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 07:39 AM   #13
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Nullification is an old pipe dream. The Constitution clearly says that federal law trumps state law. This is a stupid waste of resources and money better spent in getting laws repealed, changed, or enacted, that are not jousting at windmills.
The constitution also clearly says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The only reason the federal government gets away with what it does today is from the bastardization of the commerce clause. The federal government never had the power that it does, it usurped it after FDR packed the courts.

It most certainly not a waste of resources. It challenges the status quo that has led our country to the mess that it is in today.
Quote:
I have yet to hear anyone tell me exactly which federal law is it that should be nullified, other than all of them.
We could get rid of the entire department of energy and department of education and few people would notice. Other than the fact that there was much less useless paperwork.

PATRIOT act is another. Laws restricting interstate sales of health insurance another. Repeal federal drug laws, let the states figure it out cause what we are doing now isn't working. Ditch the 21 minimum drinking age. Get rid of the TSA. I'd think of more but I need to get to work.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 12:51 PM   #14
tet4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
Quote:
Nullification is an old pipe dream. The Constitution clearly says that federal law trumps state law. This is a stupid waste of resources and money better spent in getting laws repealed, changed, or enacted, that are not jousting at windmills.
Well, it's worked so far with the Real ID act.

Look up some of Tom Wood's recent speeches on nullification and you'll be amazed at how many times it has been used to put the federal gov back in its place. The problem is that the people just forgot about it (or didn't have the guts to do it) for about a century - big mistake.
tet4 is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 05:35 PM   #15
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Well, it's worked so far with the Real ID act.
OOOOO, good one.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 07:20 PM   #16
ganai
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Posts: 13
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) again affirmed that the commerce clause can be used to do anything. Trying to protect gun rights by making guns non-interstate commerce seems like a loser.
ganai is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 07:30 PM   #17
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Gonzales v. Raich (2005) again affirmed that the commerce clause can be used to do anything. Trying to protect gun rights by making guns non-interstate commerce seems like a loser.
So what's the alternative? If we don't keep hammering against it, nothing changes.

Call it a dumb idea if you want, but at least give us an alternative.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old March 18, 2010, 08:55 PM   #18
VeniVidiVici
Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2010
Location: "The line state" , USA
Posts: 16
The bottom line is this law doesn't really protect anyone in those states from the effects of a federal ban. It's great to help block state laws on weapons features or magazine capacity but , what are the odds of that happening in the states that have passed this bill anyway?
VeniVidiVici is offline  
Old March 19, 2010, 12:09 AM   #19
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
If push actually comes to shove, I think the feds will have to back down. this is no fight for the faint of heart though. Once a state throws down the gauntlet, it has be prepared to stand it's ground. This is a one-way street to freedom. Imagine a sheriffs swat team facing down the BATF, because that is what we are talking about here.

On one hand, you have a group peacefully asserting a right to arms, on the other a threat of armed enforcement against state LE. So they are going to lose the PR battle. Start charging and incarcerating federal agents for felonies and they lose THEIR right to a firearm. I think they'll begin to reconsider.

This is hardball folks, make no mistake about it.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; March 19, 2010 at 01:09 AM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old March 22, 2010, 01:05 AM   #20
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,855
We did the same thing with Real ID, passed a law saying any fed agent trying to enforce it in AZ will be prosecuted - and they folded. We don't have Real ID, and that was law several years ago.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11020 seconds with 7 queries