State Gun Control Legislation

Quote from msummers80 : Back to my fundamental question, why have a Constitution if the SCOTUS is the exclusive arbiter? ...

This indeed is a fundamental question. Do you have a better suggestion? Here are a few:

1. Both the SCOTUS and the POTUS have to agree in order to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of a law.

2. The house can vacate a ruling by the SCOTUS with a 2/3 vote.

3. ...

Do you think any of these are any other suggestion that you might have is better than the system that we have now?

Quote from CyberGuy : It's up to SCOTUS to decide whether something is constitutional or not. Not you.

Au contraire, while SCOTUS is the ultimate arbitrator on what is/isn't Constitutional in the court of law, that doesn't mean they are the only ones that can decide what is/isn't Constitutional.

Quote from TRNT : This indeed is a fundamental question. Do you have a better suggestion? Here are a few: 1. Both the SCOTUS and the POTUS have to agree in order to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of a law. 2. The house can vacate a ruling by the SCOTUS with a 2/3 vote. 3. ... Do you think any of these are any other suggestion that you might have is better than the system that we have now?

No, I like the system we have now. The SCOTUS issues a ruling, that is generally it. The point at which the SCOTUS needs to be corrected, hopefully it is something we can wait for a later court to fix, congress and the president can remedy through their given powers, and the last line of defense is the people. But the last line needed be recorded any more than the many rights possessed by men which are not enumerated in the constitution.

So Obama has instructed the DOJ or ICE or whichever federal agency to not to enforce particular laws he finds offensive. I think what these sheriffs are saying is similar, that the priority isn't to enforce federal firearms legislation against citizens who aren't engaged in other criminal activity. Another interesting comparison is states which have legalized things like MJ for recreational use, though it is still illegal by federal law.

Quote from paperboy05 : Seems they are breaking both the 15th and 23rd sections of the Missouri Bill of Rights. 15th - Unreasonable search and seizure prohibited--contents and basis of warrants. [mo.gov] 23rd - Right to keep and bear arms--exception. [mo.gov] You're right, under the threat of law they want citizens to turn them in voluntarily: One would guess that after 90 days they would start to take them from those that didn't do it voluntarily though.

So let me get this straight. A few "assault weapons" have been used to hurt people. As a result, we want people to voluntarily turn in ALL assault weapons. Otherwise they will be rounded up. Hmmmm. A few (perhaps more than a few) illegal aliens have hurt people and committed crimes. As a result, ALL illegal aliens are required to voluntarily turn themselves in or they will be rounded up. Seems fair to me.

Quote from roughnready : Law enforcement does not get to get to decide which laws it wants to enforce or make. That is why we have lawmakers. In the Middle Ages and during feudal times, it was very common for a lord of the manor or local sheriff to be both lawmaker and law enforcer. Thankfully, we've progressed past that as a society. Police who do not uphold the law are usually removed from duty.

So Obama and Holder get a pass when they said they weren't going to enforce DOMA?

Quote from msummers80 : No, I like the system we have now. The SCOTUS issues a ruling, that is generally it. The point at which the SCOTUS needs to be corrected, hopefully it is something we can wait for a later court to fix, congress and the president can remedy through their given powers, and the last line of defense is the people. But the last line needed be recorded any more than the many rights possessed by men which are not enumerated in the constitution. So Obama has instructed the DOJ or ICE or whichever federal agency to not to enforce particular laws he finds offensive. I think what these sheriffs are saying is similar, that the priority isn't to enforce federal firearms legislation against citizens who aren't engaged in other criminal activity. Another interesting comparison is states which have legalized things like MJ for recreational use, though it is still illegal by federal law.

You are of course completely correct in your observations.

The statements some Sheriff's have made about not enforcing unconstitutional gun laws that are making the media, (and some posters here), apoplectic, would be lauded by the same folks, if it were about other laws they find objectionable.

Quote from msummers80 : No, I like the system we have now. The SCOTUS issues a ruling, that is generally it. The point at which the SCOTUS needs to be corrected, hopefully it is something we can wait for a later court to fix, congress and the president can remedy through their given powers, and the last line of defense is the people. But the last line needed be recorded any more than the many rights possessed by men which are not enumerated in the constitution. So Obama has instructed the DOJ or ICE or whichever federal agency to not to enforce particular laws he finds offensive. I think what these sheriffs are saying is similar, that the priority isn't to enforce federal firearms legislation against citizens who aren't engaged in other criminal activity. Another interesting comparison is states which have legalized things like MJ for recreational use, though it is still illegal by federal law.

The president or the AG refusing to enforce a law is not at all the same as a local Sheriff refusing to follow an order. See, president and SCOTUS are heads of an independent branch of the government. A local sheriff is not. IMO, those sheriffs are guilty of treason when they say they will take arms against the federal gov.

If you cannot see the difference, then I think our discussion has come to an end.

Quote from andyfico : So let me get this straight. A few "assault weapons" have been used to hurt people. As a result, we want people to voluntarily turn in ALL assault weapons. Otherwise they will be rounded up. Hmmmm. A few (perhaps more than a few) illegal aliens have hurt people and committed crimes. As a result, ALL illegal aliens are required to voluntarily turn themselves in or they will be rounded up. Seems fair to me.

Quote from loop610bob : Well, the 2nd doesn't quite live in a vacuum. Simply conjuring it isn't quite the talisman supporters wish it was. It's the only place in the entire document where you see the phrase "well regulated". Strange, that.

The "well regulated" phrase has been explained in the Framers' writings. It refers to the mandate of maintaining well regulated arms (i.e. well maintained and functional) such that the militia (i.e. every able-bodied male from 17-45) is ready to dispel tyranny at the hands of the standing army if need be.

Quote from AlfredoGarcia : The "well regulated" phrase has been explained in the Framers' writings. It refers to the mandate of maintaining well regulated arms (i.e. well maintained and functional) such that the militia (i.e. every able-bodied male from 17-45) is ready to dispel tyranny at the hands of the standing army if need be.

An addendum to a contract that is not actually ratified means... absolutely nothing.

If after the fact I tried to clarify how I saw the terms of a contract in personal writings and then tried to present that to the court as substantive, I'd be laughed out of the room. Then again, if I were to get an activist judge that wanted to read into the contract more than was there, maybe I'd have a case.

Quote from nobama : It won't pass over here on the east side of the hills, but over there on the wet side where all the population and the liberals are centralized, it just might. If you guys over there will elect Jay Inslee as governor, legalize gay marriage and legalize MJ, anything can happen...............

I can't say I voted for Inslee, but I did vote yes on the other two. You'll notice MJ and gay marriage won by a larger margin than Inslee. I know the libertarian vote isn't that big, but I think it's big enough to keep our gun rights. We just legalized suppressors in the state. I just don't think the AWB has a chance. There was a ~45 minute wait for lanes at the shooting range in Bellevue this weekend. Finally, I have some staunch liberal friends that pro gun on this side of the hills.

People that vote to legalize gay marriage and marijuana should logically be on the side of keeping as many guns legal as they can.

Quote from Xygonn : I can't say I voted for Inslee, but I did vote yes on the other two. You'll notice MJ and gay marriage won by a larger margin than Inslee. I know the libertarian vote isn't that big, but I think it's big enough to keep our gun rights. We just legalized suppressors in the state. I just don't think the AWB has a chance.

The best strategy at this point in time is to very vocally contact all state representatives and encourage friends and co-workers to do the same.

Quote from Xygonn : There was a ~45 minute wait for lanes at the shooting range in Bellevue this weekend.

That's a bummer. We just go out in the hills a mile down the road. No waiting there.

Quote from Xygonn : Finally, I have some staunch liberal friends that pro gun on this side of the hills.

They are outnumbered in the liberal ranks.

Quote from Xygonn : People that vote to legalize gay marriage and marijuana should logically be on the side of keeping as many guns legal as they can.

That could fill a multi-page thread on its own.......

Quote from TRNT : The president or the AG refusing to enforce a law is not at all the same as a local Sheriff refusing to follow an order. See, president and SCOTUS are heads of an independent branch of the government. A local sheriff is not.

There are three independent branches of government at the federal level. Our system of governance was set up with not only distinction of powers at the federal level, but different levels of power: local (which derives varying levels of autonomy in exercising that power depending on the state to which the locality belongs), state, federal. If it were not so, this portion of the constitution would be non-sense:

Quote : To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

along with a few other similar clauses. Then there is this amendment:

Quote : 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.

Of course I'm sure you will want to wait for the SCOTUS to interpret this for you and tell you if this means the states have any independent powers or not. I on the other hand find the words perfectly clear.

Finally, please see the definition of federalism:

Quote : A system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.

Quote from TRNT : IMO, those sheriffs are guilty of treason when they say they will take arms against the federal gov.

If they take up arms, yes. If they refuse to enforce, no. If the federal government first ignores the Constitution, squashes local power unjustly, and ignores the rights of the people, it is the one committing treason. In that our Republic form of government rests ultimate power in the constitution rather than a body of men.

Quote from TRNT : If you cannot see the difference, then I think our discussion has come to an end.

Awe, I was rather enjoying myself.

Quote from TRNT : The president or the AG refusing to enforce a law is not at all the same as a local Sheriff refusing to follow an order. See, president and SCOTUS are heads of an independent branch of the government. A local sheriff is not. IMO, those sheriffs are guilty of treason when they say they will take arms against the federal gov. If you cannot see the difference, then I think our discussion has come to an end.

Quote from msummers80 : There are three independent branches of government at the federal level. Our system of governance was set up with not only distinction of powers at the federal level, but different levels of power: local (which derives varying levels of autonomy in exercising that power depending on the state to which the locality belongs), state, federal. If it were not so, this portion of the constitution would be non-sense:

How is what you are saying in response or even in contradiction to what I said? Did you not notice "head" in my comments? A local sheriff and the POTUS are both in the same branch of the government. And when it comes to federal laws (verified by the SCOTUS) I say the POTUS outranks a local sheriff.

Quote from msummers80 : If they take up arms, yes. If they refuse to enforce, no. If the federal government first ignores the Constitution, squashes local power unjustly, and ignores the rights of the people, it is the one committing treason. In that our Republic form of government rests ultimate power in the constitution rather than a body of men. Awe, I was rather enjoying myself.

Well, I don't know if you noticed but one of the "gov is our enemy" posters on this Forum mentioned a case where the local sheriff threatened the feds with arms resistance and the poster was giddy to report the feds chickened out. i am glad you agree that is treason.

And for the last time........you keep saying the ultimate power rests with the Constitution but the Constitution itself says the SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and not every Harry, Dick, and Local sheriff. If you disagree with this point, at least acknowledge it and give your reasoning instead of just ignoring my point.