The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 25, 2013, 08:52 PM   #1
wet
Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2011
Location: ID.
Posts: 89
Two new Idaho laws

Two new laws perposed in Idaho would make it a misdeeanor punishable by jail and a $1000 fine for law enforcement or government employees to help the fedral government confiscate newley-banned firearms or ammunition, or to help with restrictions or registration of guns. A second bill bans any restrictions on guns made in Idaho that do not leave the state.
(I love this state)
wet is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 09:04 PM   #2
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,493
Do you have numbers for the bills in question? The state legislature site shows bills to issue enhanced carry licenses, reduce the power of cities to override state law on the matter, and one to exempt suppressors made within the state borders from federal meddling.

According to the NY Times, there's not much chance of gun control getting passed there.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 09:44 PM   #3
idahoJoe
Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2013
Posts: 20
One law I would like to see is the ability to carry on school campuses

I am not sure It is illegal but according to my college professor it was forbidden.

Lucky for me I never had to use my whistle
idahoJoe is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 10:48 PM   #4
wet
Member
 
Join Date: October 2, 2011
Location: ID.
Posts: 89
I couldn't find the bill # but both the idaho statesman, (idahoststesman.com) or (ktvb.com) are running the story.
wet is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 10:56 PM   #5
tynman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2012
Location: NJ
Posts: 231
WOW I think I have to look into moving there when I retire!!!
Nice if its true.
tynman is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 10:59 PM   #6
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
and one to exempt suppressors made within the state borders from federal meddling.
Has that tactic worked anywhere yet? I can see the rationale behind it (eliminating the "interstate" aspect of the suppressor manufacturing and sales in order to keep the feds from using the Interstate Commerce Clause to claim authority), but as far as I know, no court has actually validated the argument.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old February 25, 2013, 11:30 PM   #7
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,277
Scott? I don't think we will see a Federal Court agree with any of these State "Firearms Freedom Acts." They are all protest and no real teeth. And that's what this suppressor bill is.

The only way this would ever play to our side (10th Amendment), would be if the vast majority of the States passed similar laws. That just might cause the SCOTUS to actually revisit Wickard. Only by overturning that case, can the Commerce Clause be cabined.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old February 26, 2013, 10:11 AM   #8
esqappellate
Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2012
Posts: 69
The State can't nullify a federal law as federal law is supreme under the Constitution. However, the federal government may not require the cooperation of state officials in enforcing federal law. So, if the state law simply said "we won't cooperate, do it yourself" that would be perfectly within the state's perogative. See, e.g., Printz, 521 U.S., at 933, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (striking down federal legislation compelling state law enforcement officers to perform federally mandated background checks on handgun purchasers); New York, 505 U.S at 174–175, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (invalidating provisions of an Act that would compel a State to either take title to nuclear waste or enact particular state waste regulations). It has also led us to scrutinize Spending Clause legislation to ensure that Congress is not using financial inducements to exert a “power akin to undue influence.” Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590, 57 S.Ct. 883, 81 L.Ed. 1279 (1937).
esqappellate 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 12:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07915 seconds with 9 queries