New York Times. (The AP talks to several Democrats who confirm they will bow to their constituents' wishes on the matter and vote against their party's own governor next month.) Even if the legislation becomes law, however, critics don't think it stands a chance in the courts. Backers say an important principle is at stake: "It’s probably one of the best states’ rights issues that the country’s got going right now,” says a state GOP party official.
The legislation not only declares federal gun laws to be null and void within the state's borders, it actually makes it illegal for federal agents to try to enforce them. In fact, state residents would be able to sue the arresting officer. The measure also makes it illegal for journalists to print the names of gun owners, calling to mind controversies like this one. A quote from a Democratic lawmaker pretty much sums things up: “We love our guns and we love hunting. It’s not worth the fight for me to vote against it." But, he adds, "the bill is completely unconstitutional, so the courts are going to have to throw it out.”
Now the Second Amendment is crystal clear on this matter, since it codifies in no uncertain terms that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Framers wrote the Bill of Rights in plain English, so only a willful misinterpretation by progressives would treat it otherwise.
And most of the states, which gave birth to the federal government, were equally explicit on the matter of individual sovereignty and the right of self defense.
It is only the Statist, pursuing an illegitimate agenda deconstructing the rights of the individual while advocating the importance of centralized government, who could read these expressions otherwise.
Hat tip: Russell.
I believe that the Nullification issue was settled in 1865 by the first Republican Presidential Administration.
Let me know if I am wrong about this, Dougie, or if this is more of your usual idiotic ranting.
The Missouri legislatures decision is totally Constitutional. The states are the bastions of upholding the Constitution, and if the Federal government decides to infringe on those given rights, the states have the right to nullify them. This Democrat legislator would do him self well to actually read the Constituion, that is if he can read.
Good luck with your Nullification Fantasy, Microbe. Perhaps you should read a little history; it would do thyself well.
So an issue is settled once armed force is applied to force another to submit to their wishes? I guess the rape issue is settled every time a girl says no, but force is applied to make her submit.
So the Federal government is pretty clearly in violation of the Constitution. And now they're saying that if a state takes action to correct the situation, they will fight in court on the grounds that the state is violating the Constitution? Even if that was true, so, what, the principle is that only the feds can violate the Constitution?
Well, Anonymous Dudes, history has shown that the first states (and only states so far) to try the old Nullification route (or Secession route, if you prefer) ended up in ruins and shambles. The rape analogy is pretty silly and is obviously not relevant to issues between state governments and the federal government. It is a simple fact, long recognized by the US Courts, that federal laws trump state laws and cannot be nullified by the states; and that federal court rulings also trump state court rulings. Nullification or Secession or attempting to bar federal law enforcement agents from enforcing federal laws within any state will simply not work because the federal government obviously has the superior Constitutional and judicial power over the states. And it also has the superior armed forces to enforce its superior power.
The key paragraph is this:
The governors, State legislatures, sheriffs, etc., have every right and authority to protect the citizens. As has been said time and time again, the Federal Government has no police powers within the States. This principle applies to ALL federal legislation.
Carlito, your position that Federal authority is superior to that of the States is absolutely unconstitutional, and completely devoid of factual legal foundation. ANY Federal authority and jurisdiction is granted to them at the pleasure of the States as each see fit, backed by this Supreme Court citation:In U.S. v. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 11, the Court declared: “It cannot be denied that the power of the state to protect the lives, health and property of its citizens and to preserve good order and the public morals, the power to govern men and things within the limits of its dominion, is a power originally and always belonging to the state, not surrendered to the general [federal] Government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive.”
“The consent requirement of Article I, section 8, clause 17 was intended by the framers of the Constitution to preserve the State’s jurisdictional integrity against federal encroachment. The Federal Government cannot, by unilateral action on its part, acquire legislative jurisdiction over any area within the exterior boundaries of a State,”
The law’s of Congress in respect to those matters (outside of Constitutionally delegated powers) do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the District of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government. (Caha v US, 152 U.S. 211) Constitutional restrictions and limitations were not applicable to the area of lands, enclaves, territories and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority. (Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244)
State jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern individuals, enterprises. real and personal property’ within the boundaries of a given State. Federal jurisdiction, by contrast, is extremely limited and can be exercised only in areas external to the sovereign States unless, and until, a State has ceded a portion of its jurisdiction to the federal government.
The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each newly created State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government, superior power or jurisdiction. (M’ilvaine v Coxe’s Lessee, 8 US 209) PERIOD!
Usual hillbilly logic. Cite cherry-picked cases that fit your wet dreams and ignore the rest of US history. Gee, if this is true and the state governments have superior power over the federal government, then why can't you legally buy an automatic weapon in Missouri or Texas or California? Why can't you just carry any gun you want around Maryland or Virginia or Oregon? Or why can't Texas or Idaho or Massachusetts outlaw abortion within their borders? And why isn't Doug Ross the President of the USA? Time to wake up boys, it's not 50 little sovereign nations, it's one big nation with 50 little administrative districts.
@carlito - fyi
Missouri is NOT enacting nullification on firearms that in anyway cross state lines. Only firearms made in Missouri, sold and purchased in Missouri, and owned and transported in Missouri are exempt from federal firearm laws.
Why? Because there is no interstate commerce. Ergo no federal firearms law need apply. Pretty straight forward.
Uh, Carlito, one CAN purchase a full auto weapon legally in Missouri. This is done by following all the draconian laws and regulations the Federal Government has instituted.
Look up Printz vs. US. US Supreme court decision, Justice Scalia writing for the majority opinion. "The states are NOT subject to federal direction". The federal government had limited powers as stated specifically in the constitution. READ IT.
Doug, I think that the marijuana cases are not quite Nullifications of federal pot laws as much as the DOJ deciding to change their marijuana prosecution guidelines regarding possession and/or sale of certain amounts of pot. This case is certainly far from the Missouri law, which allows Missouri to illegally prevent federal agents from enforcing federal law.
Kit Lars, the federal laws re automatic weapons entail a lot more issues than just interstate commerce. Also, this is at least one SC case in which the SC ruled that a farmer in a state, who grew his own vegetables for his own consumption and not for sale across any state line, was subject to federal regulations based on the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Dean Carder, this is true and just puts the lie to the assertions of the earlier posters who stated that the USG cannot "infringe" on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Randy, the Printz case merely struck down the sections of the Brady Act that required local law enforcement agencies to perform certain functions for the federal government. Again, this is pretty far from the assertion that a state may just state that a federal law in unconstitutional and will not be enforced within that state, even by federal agents.
Nullification is in no way succession, so i don't know if you fully understand the legal principal beiing applied. There are many examples of nullification by state governments, even some by smaller localities. For example the constitution was amended to legalize drinking (21st amndmnt) this law is an absolute everywhere inside U.S. Borders with no exception. However many counties in various states are dry counties nullifying an individuals right to license sell or serve (provisions that are noted under federal law) although they cannot penalize you for drinking..... Another example: recreational marijuana (and no I'm not one of those tree hugging hippies, i don't use drugs so lets skip that whole mess in any future rebutles) federal law has been and remains without exception that it remains an illicit illegal controlled substance. There Is an entire department of federal government strictly for enforcing drug law (DEA) that spends roughly half of its financial budget on marijuana alone. Colorado has passed legislation to nullify this federal law within its sovereign borders and is constitutionally protected in doing so. This is the reason the united states government has not,is not, will not be seizing farmers or shop owners assets as federal property illegally acquired or funded by these (federally illegal) means. The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. The only way around that is to say that particular arms are not arms. Or certain individuals are different and not included under this provision. But that is an extreamly dangerous slope as the 2nd ammendment is in the constitutional bill of rights. The basis for all American law. If it doesn't apply in certain instances or to certain people which other rights are in question. Its no exaggeration. Its no stretch of imagination. Its simple. Gun rights were given so other rights could not be so easily taken. That is not my opinion or interpretation; it is a fact you can read for yourself behind 6 inches of bullet proof UV protected glass in our great nations capital. Read for yourself. Study American history. Or even take a couple of law courses. This legislation faces uphill battles but Is legally sound and within a states power.
So if just like to point out that you were proven wrong with factual evidential cases, bearing legal precedent and your strategy was a childish presumptuous insult, and then dismissal. As if because you personally still disagree it all counts for nothing. Until you can back your argument with any FACTUAL substance. You have lost. Its okay i hear it happens to lots of guys. As.a.side note I'd also like to mention that you referenced "forgetting the rest of u.s. History" as if all the rest of our history has anything to do with your point. Also since you brought up the rest of US. History, don't stop there, feel free to make a relavent point to your argument supported by it....ill wait. Also you were asking why if states had superior power (which by the way its not superior its sovereign, there is a big difference that's not just knit picking) then why can't you get a fully automatic weapon in certain states. That question in and of itself works counter productive to your argument. The implication in your statement being that different states then HAVE made their own different gun laws. In either case your point is mute. A private citizen can aquire a fully automatic or silenced weapon with a class 3 tax stamp in all 50 states as.determined by the united.states supreme court. This descision came shortly.after a federal law banning them I know i have a class 3 myself. (odd though because im in my last year of law school and that's not very "hillbilly" of me) they are obontotainable in a number of different ways in every state for the same price ($200 one time fee per item) Now onto the question of why can't you just carry any gun you want to around maryland viginia out Oregon.... Provided you abide by property laws and it is a legally aquired firearm and you are not a flagged buyer(felon, dishonorable discharge, ect ect) you can. You can of Course argue but only by twisting facts. If its in your hands and you're waking down the street of course not. that has the same effect as yelling fire in a public theatre or arena. Inciting panic, which Is illegal; even though you still retain the right to free speech. Gun rights are a constitutional guarantee. Your abortion comment has nothing to do with gun rights and seems to be yet another tangent you've gone down in desperation. I will say only that regardless of which side you fall on in that regard. The courts have determined WHEN a life becomes human. Until such time has passed a fetus remains legally a mere life form. Not unlike an ant( better still a parasite) connected to and dependent on a person but not endowed with their rights. As such, if.a person with a fetus wants it destroyed, the fetus has no assumed human right to the contrary until it is old enough as set by those guidelines. To prevent a person from removing a parasite from their own body is not a state or federal right. As for why one certain individual isn't president, i don't even know where to begin. There are waaaaay too many factors. More to the point, who cares. Candidates, hopefuls, and supporters alike change frequently. I see no support for your argument there, only another presumptuous attempt at a jab
Post a Comment