Here is an offering from Joseph Cronin Jr. in a reply to Gun Control is Population Control
Status Report:
States Can Nullify Federal Gun Control in Practice
There were several important victories in the fight to protect the Second Amendment from federal attack during the 2015 legislative session. This sets the stage for further action to nullify in practice federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms in 2016.
In light of the recent murders at an Oregon college, Obama is once more trying to use a vicious crime as an excuse to violate our... via executive orders. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both stated they intend to introduce gun control measures such as magazine capacity limits, background checks and waiting periods. Of course no criminal bothers to obey these laws, but the do encroach on our right to keep and bear arms.
The foundation is set for state action to stop these plans in their tracks.
IN PROGRESS
Sixteen states considered Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) bills in 2015, and significant laws relating to the Second Amendment went into effect in two states.
A new Tennessee law prohibits the state from implementing or enforcing federal gun measures that would “violate the Tennessee state constitution.” This bill sets the foundation for further action and represents a first step toward nullifying many current and future federal measures.
Additional steps can be taken in Tennessee:
- Amend the current law to remove language requiring a judicial determination that a federal act would be counter to the state constitution prior to the state withdrawing support. This would ensure that state participation in federal gun control would end immediately.
- Concurrently introduce new legislation that expressly bans participation in any new federal gun control measure
- Compile a report of federal enforcement actions taken on firearms in Tennessee, highlighting those enforced with the participation of state agencies, and which ones likely violate the new law. From there, state-based gun rights groups can file an injunction to stop state participation under the law already on the books
Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed a bill that takes a small, but important, step forward. The new law “Repeals the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun.” Enforcement of federal restrictions on such weapons rely on participation between state and federal governments. With the new law, Indiana now authorizes what the federal government restricts, and this sets the stage for people to take things further.
The Montana House and Senate both passed a SAPA as well, but Gov. Steve Bullock vetoed the bill.
NEXT STEPS
As we move into the 2016 legislative season, we are preparing to build on our successes and overcome some of the challenges we faced this year.
In 2014, Idaho passed a bill that bans state enforcement of any future federal laws or acts relating to firearms. This should be the blueprint first step for all states in 2016 and beyond. Idaho can build on this by expanding the ban from future to specific current federal gun control measures, and eventually all of them.
Alaska and Kansas also have laws on the books that set the stage for future action.
In Alaska, HB69 was signed into law in April 2013. It establishes the principle that no state or local agency may use any resources to “implement or aid in the implementation” of any federal acts that infringe on a “person’s right, under the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to keep and bear arms.”
Like Tennessee, follow up legislation should be introduced that specifically clarifies which federal acts qualify as an infringement, and that expressly prohibits state and local assistance or participation in any enforcement action. Strategically, we recommend starting with any new federal gun control measures as a starting point, with a long-term goal of including all federal acts.
In Kansas, SB102, the 2nd Amendment Protection Act, was also signed into law in April 2013. It establishes the foundation for a ban on state and local assistance or participation in the enforcement of federal gun measures. It reads, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas.
In a minor legal victory, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Kansas law, saying the suit from the Brady Campaign was “without merit.” While this was a win, it should be noted that the federal court didn’t say that the federal government doesn’t have the power to regulate firearms under the commerce clause, as the Kansas law states. The Brady suit was dismissed for lack of standing.
OPPOSITION
Moving forward, it is clear that we have numerous opponents to contend with if we are to make further gains.
One of our biggest and most significant detractors were state and local law enforcement. Despite the fact many agencies claim they support the right to keep and bear arms, they had no qualms about opposing their state’s SAPA bill. Some sheriffs declared they would even violate state law to infringe on your gun rights. For many, protecting the Second Amendment would mean risking the loss of all the cool toys they get from the feds via police militarization programs.
At the same time, there are still those who believe in adhering to the Constitution, and we will continue to identify and reach out to those who support our efforts.
The other group standing in our way are the quislings from the “pro gun” Republican party. While Vichy Republican Governor Bullock vetoed Montana’s version of SAPA, mainstream GOP members chairing committees where SAPA bills were being considered refused to push them through for a floor vote.
The only way to overcome this kind of opposition is to create a groundswell of grassroots support that overwhelms the law enforcement lobby and makes wishy-washy politicians fear for their political lives.
TAKING ACTION
It is time to go on the offensive and do what has to be done to get other states to pass their own version of the SAPA.
You play an important part in the fight.
- Spread the message via social media.
- Get the model legislation and get it to your state legislators. click here
- Sign up for action alerts and newsletters at our 2nd Amendment-only campaign, ShallNot.org
A farmer does not plow his fields when winter arrives, but during good weather, in anticipation of those colder months, so that when snowy winds blow, he does not fret. In the same way, we must sow the seeds necessary to reap a bountiful harvest of liberty in the future by ensuring that regardless of the tyranny politicians in D.C. hatch violating our gun rights, they will have to go it alone. States will not come to their aid. Without the cooperation of the states, no federal gun control law can succeed.
Replies
The 2nd amendment really does nothing any more. Being part of the fed constitution, it only applied to the territories destined to become states. The rights of the citizens of the states were at one time protected by their state constitution. The fed bill of rights was the common touch stone the SCt referred to.
So far, the fed trial courts have stated the 14th does not incorporate the 2nd and so far I have not seen were the SCt has made an absolute statement to the contrary. Where the court has addressed the right to own guns, it has followed fed law with the same restrictions. The gov has no power to impose restrictions on a right → therefore, the courts have no actually ruled that gun ownership is a right and a number of cities have outright bans on ownership that the courts have not challenged.
Hey Bill,
Instead of smoking the liberty documents why don't you try reading them ?
Good grief , get a clue !
So, where am I wrong? The 'liberty documents' are not what most people think they are. As an example: The courts have all held that the bill of rights is NOT incorporated into the 14th amendment - and for good reason. Still, people keep screaming about being deprived of rights listed in the fed bill of rights.
The fed bill of rights did not apply to the states either. The states and fed gov are completely different gov's and the people of the states had no need of the fed bill of rights. Their rights 'were' secured by their state constitution - complete with its own bill of rights.
Maybe I'm not the clueless one.
Wow !
Bill , you really are clueless !
I'm feeling sorry for you about this condition you seem to be in .
Let me try to help you out of that incorrect condition of misinterpretation and misunderstanding so we may share the same page .
Read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and also the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers for correct interpretation and understanding of what is intended by the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights , Articles I-X ) .
Maybe then you will see the proper lawful ( geographic and subject matter) jurisdiction limitation of each jurisdiction of gov't.
Only then will you be able to understand the proper character of / role to be played out by the Federal Gov't and it's intended purpose .
It is to serve in a dual capacity / role , serving the "union" as a "national" gov't when dealing with foreign jurisdictions , and otherwise as a "federal" gov't when dealing with the sovereign States as their objective assistant .
Many have unwittingly accepted / adopted the interpretation that the "supremacy clause" means ALL fedral laws are supreme over state laws, but in truth it is Only the lawful federal laws created to allow the federal gov't to carry out the federal powers and duties "delegated" to the federal gov't by the States assembled , as declared in the U.S. Constitution , and ONLY lawful federal laws which are proper and necessary to carry out / perform those duties lawfully .
Only these are to be understood as supreme over any state laws in conflict with such .
This is the point of the "Oath of Office" . To up hold the U.S. Constitution and it's correct interpretation as" the supreme law of the land" , NOT any other fedral law in conflict with state laws !
In such instances they are ONLY federal laws applying to Only federal places , persons , activities , affairs NOT in conflict with State laws !
Hence , Federal law is federal , State law is State , and U.S. Constitutional law is EVERYBODIES law !
I hope I've helped .
Q. Was the 1st and 2nd Amendment Ratified???
dw
Do you even think about what I write or just instinctively tell me I am wrong? Again you make broad statements but fail to actually address statements I make and explain why a particular statement is wrong.
As for the US constitution being everyone's law. It is if you are a citizen via the 14th. If the constitutions were being followed, the citizens of the states [ whites ]would have no need for most of the fed instrument. The reason is that their rights are suppose to be secured [ not granted ] by their state constitution.
Therefore, if the United States [ fed gov ] ceased to exist, their rights would still be secured by their state constitution. If we were not in another civil war with the fed gov, 99.999% of current fed laws would not apply to state-only citizens since the fed gov was not granted the power to rule those people concurrently with the states.
Naturally 14th subjects in a state are subject to all state and fed laws all the time. They are even subject to having commercial laws imposed on their private activities.
Did you even bother to read the liberty documents or just spout off your convoluted claims of inerpretation as correct .
The problem with your reasoning is that you lack a sound basis to project from .
Now go do the research and stop being so lazy and flippant .
You're all over the place with your position statements and all too often mistating things at your convenience .
Are you trying to try my patience or is it you simply don't know enough correct historical facts to make sense ?
Your comments often contradict themselves and are simply inaccurate and incorrect all too often .
Good grief !
Do the research of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers .
Read the Virginia Resolution and the Kentucky Resolution made to their respective State assemblies .
Then follow these up by reading the "Brief Treaty as to the Nature and Purpose of the Federal Gov't" as explained by Abel Upshire .
These writings should giving clarity to your wrongheaded and confused thinking and contradictory misstatements which are causing too much confusion in your messages .
There is alot to learn in order to understand what is correct .
And way too much effort to spend correcting and recorrecting misguided ,confused ,contradictory misstatements of facts claimed in your comments .
Good luck , Bill.
Again you make general statements but fail to address any specific issues. Since I make specific statements, I have given you plenty of opportunity to make specific challenges.
Please stop attacking me as a person because you do not like what I state and instead, if you can, challenge specific statements that you think are wrong. Please don't forget to state why you think my statements are incorrect.
Well , when I read your convoluted incoherent confused to no end ramblings then YES , I instinctively tell YOU how wrong YOU are !
Bill ,
define fed constitution
define fed Bill of Rights
explain the 14th A , to whom it applies , what conditions it addresses , and why ?
Explain what the 2d A does for the people
Explain how the State gov'ts protect the rights of the citizens of the States
Explain how California's State Constitution protects the 2d A and all other rights of the States Citizens
Explain why the "fed" 2d A would ONLY apply to the territories intending to become States
Explain the point / purpose of the 14th A
Explain how any gov't constitution protects the rights of the Citizens of the States
Explain how the SCt does not incorporate the 2d A and why this is so
I'll get back to you with more for you to explain regarding you unclear meanings you throw out there for others to try to answer for you after you answer these questions first to make yourself better understood and you point of reference more clear
Can you prove any of your claims of interpretation and understanding which you make your case
Until then what's the point of all the rhetoric ... so ,
I often have to remind myself of an ancient saying of wisdom when dealing with the confused frenzied minded to do as follows ;
Rebuke a fool for his folly ( when he is lacking wisdom) ; Rebuke not a fool for his folly (when he is blathering nonsense) .
Get back to me with answers to the list above regarding the subject matter in your first comment regarding the 2d A your ideas of what governs what and who has authority when and where and over what subject matter , etc. .
Again, you attack me but not what I state and you seem to want to draw me into a protracted teaching session.
Again, my response is: Take a particular statement that I have made and explain why you feel I am incorrect.
You have demanded that I explain my thoughts on a long number of topics.
My suggestion again is to pick a particular statement that I made and explain why you think I am incorrect. My goal is to keep the conversation on target so others can follow it and not take up pages in one response and create a post that others will not bother to read.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next