State Gun Control Legislation
 

Individual states have enacted or are planning legislation that will implement bans on "assault weapons" and limits on magazine capacities.

Missouri [mo.gov] is now attempting to enact legislation that will make it a felony to possess an "assault weapon" or "large capacity magazine" 90 days from the date of enactment of the law.

They are attempting to legislate confiscation, despite the claims that are heard repeatedly that no one is going to confiscate guns.

Is gun and magazine confiscation coming to your state?

Missouri Confiscation Bill 545
 

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 545

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY


INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ELLINGER (Sponsor), SCHUPP, MCNEIL AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

0776L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk


AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine, with a penalty provision.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.023, to read as follows:

571.023. 1. As used in this section the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Assault weapon", any:

(a) Semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock; or

d. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

(b) Semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

(c) Semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

a. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

b. A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

d. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

(d) Semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock;

d. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or

e. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

(e) Shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or

(f) Conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.



Assault weapon does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable;

(2) "Detachable magazine", an ammunition feeding device that can be loaded or unloaded while detached from a firearm and readily inserted into a firearm and includes a magazine that can be detached by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with a finger or by use of a tool or bullet;

(3) "Fixed magazine", an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action;

(4) "Large capacity magazine", any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;

(b) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

2. No person, corporation or other entity in the state of Missouri may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine.

3. This prohibition shall not apply to:

(1) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon or large capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;

(2) The manufacture of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees, provided the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal and state laws; or

(3) The sale or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a dealer that is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

•

...states rights?

How ominous. The pro-gun movement thrives on irrational fear, like the "THEY ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS" line. From the NRA's Wayne LaPierre this week (emphasis mine):

That's exactly the discussion that separates this thread from the others.

Read the text of the MO law. Please explain how the intent of the law is not to confiscate and destroy "your guns"...

Contrary to what some would try to have us believe, it is not an "irrational fear".

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.

And the 2nd Amendment

Of course after Miller. But I was referring to the States' rights argument. Certainly a State should still follow their own Constitution if one is going to ignore incorporation.

It appears that any Constitution is in their minds irrelevant if the end justifies the means.....

The irrational fear point was in reference to your question about whether they were coming to your state next. Do you honestly believe that the Missouri legislature has any reasonable chance of passing this into law and having the governor sign it?

There were probably many NY residents who honestly believed that NY wouldn't have passed legislation such as they did into law and having the governor sign it.

I couldn't find the part that said the legislature couldn't define which arms were acceptable in the state of Missouri. One presumes they could do that otherwise I could keep a nuke, no?

If you could point to that provision in their constitution, I'd appreciate it.

Nothing in the NY law mandated taking the guns away from residents. It was just tightening up an existing assault weapons ban, limited magazine capacity, and increasing background checks.

I didn't say the NY law mandated taking the guns away from residents, my point was that the legislation was enacted in such a way that caught many NY residents by surprise.

I know you didn't say that. I was pointing out the ways in which they're different, and why it was easier to get the NY law passed than it will be to get this law passed.

only certain types of guns. Right?

In fact the vast majority of guns are not even subject to thisproposed law. Right?

There is a bit of hyperbole here but I will allow it. :lol:

as it should be.

that said, i'm against this, as i'm against states' rights in general. the citizens of one state should have no more or less rights than the citizens of any other.

but in the meantime, good for them.

The problem is that some of the state's rights people believe states are not subject to federal laws and for example a local sheriff could disobey rulings by the SCOTUS and orders by the POTUS,

Quite hilarious.

A large number of guns will be banned according to the proposed MO law. If you owned one of those, then it would be true that the intent of the law would be to confiscate and destroy "your guns"...
Does the alleged disobedience of those rulings and orders deny US citizens of their Constitutional right?

As I said:

Only certain types of guns. Right?

In fact the vast majority of guns are not even subject to this proposed law. Right?

If one thinks they are not subject to ruling of the SCOTUS or orders of the POTUS, then how could the same person think they are covered by the 2nd Amendment?

"Only certain types" of guns that would be banned takes in a lot of guns that are not even considered by many persons to be "assault weapons".

The vast majority of single shot rifles, pistols and shotguns are not subject to this proposed law.

It is irrelevant whether or not it is the "vast majority", however. This has been discussed by many persons in the other threads.

Just read this in the bill:
When will these people learn...

And oh yeah, sorry turkey hunters:

We are often told there are about 300 million guns in the US. If all of those were in MO, what percent of those do you think will be subject to this law. It seems to me it would be a very small percentage. No?

Actually, MO's law covers a large number of guns - any semi-auto rifle or shotgun with a collapsible stock, for instance, and any semi-auto rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip. Any magazine that accepts more than 10 rounds would be illegal as well - which is the majority of magazines sold with rifles and non-compact pistols.

Also of note in the law is that it gives options for people who currently possess those things - take it out of MO, render is inoperable, or surrender it for destruction. It does not mention anything about surrendering a normal capacity magazine for conversion to a low capacity (10 round) magazine. Wonder if it would still be considered illegal if it were modified...

I don't see a difference between taking existing guns and not letting people buy new ones. Also, the leftists screamed that 10 rounds was not creating a slippery slope, and then these evil people further reduced ti to 7. So much for their "word."

I'll be intrigued to see how this plays out and how the populace reacts to confiscation, should this bill come to pass. I'm guessing there will be more than one shootout, should this go down.

i will hail whatever brave missouri state trooper whose blood is shed as a martyr that will further the cause.

also, i can't help but think, that if this kind of legislation can be proposed in missouri, it can be proposed anywhere. from the fountains in the outfield in kauffman park, to the city museum in st louis, i am so proud of mo right now. i feel privileged to say i've flown over and driven through it on a number of occasions. the show me state indeed. show me your guns, so they can be taken away.

The difference between seizing something and prohibiting something is huge. Again, it really speaks to the absolutist mindset that some people believe that it's either ALL guns or NO guns. There's a reasonable amount of regulation that strikes a balance between the two. Like most things, there can be a happy median. The fact that the NRA instead tries to sell this as a dichotomy really speaks to their radical fundamentalism. Most Americans are much more practical about things.

I acknowledge, nay I stipulate (since I do not know that myself), that the MO bill covers a large number of guns. Will you agree that the MO bill covers a small percentage of guns in MO?

This is at least my third attempt to get this out of the pro-gun side. Why the resistance to the truth? Why not be upfront?

So it's OK to ban guns as long as you do it a few percent at a time? And if it covers a large number of guns in MO, it follows that it covers a large percentage of guns in MO, too.

I don't think numbers are available as far as individual types go. I did see that somewhere around 30 million AR-type rifles have been sold in the last ~25 years in teh US (and not exported), which would put those at about 10% of the total in the US. I assume the makeup would be similar in MO. Most AR-type rifles have either a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or both, which would make them illegal under this new MO law. That doesn't consider non AR-type rifles or shotguns, either...

If you have better numbers, by all means post them.

Do you not understand the concept of differences? Because they're totally different.

Define small, I'm not sure I can find any facts, but I would imagine over 10% of guns would be affected.

Say I define small to be 10%. :)

Thanks for your guess. Seriously, that was gonna be my guess, about 10%, perhaps even less.

Different perspectives on the same situation. I will hail all those that actually stand up and vigorously (perhaps violently) oppose this unconstitutional law (by the very state's constitution; I do support state's rights...but, also expect them to follow their own constitution).

Those that stand up to government abusing its authority and violating its own social contract are patriots. I will applaud that hypothetical state trooper's blood for another reason, it will place it in other people's minds that standing up is possible. I believe that law enforcement will not like it for Missourians to show their arms.

It would quite possibly undermine what respect Law Enforcement currently commands there, and likely inspire anarchy. It isn't California, and I doubt its citizens will give up their arms as quietly, if called to.

There is another aspect here that could come into play, as well. I wonder how the Oath Keepers will respond to this? What if LEOs refuse to enforce this law?

In many states, Sheriffs Associations are already voicing their opposition, including Obama's own Illinois, as well as individual counties.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sur...le/2521564

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.

You are incorrect.

LE agencies often prioritize the enforcement of certain laws according to many criterion, one example being budgetary another being space available in the jail, number of personnel in the department, etc.

wrong...you have to go no further than "sanctuary cities" whose police forces refuse to conduct basic legal immigration checks. Don't forgot Detroit and Chicago police saying they wont be responding to certain 911 calls because they do not have the manpower...those are just a couple of examples.

Also, the DOJ refused to defend DOMA.

IMO violence against our government is unwarranted as long as we have free elections.

Washington State SB 5737 Assaullt Weapons Ban
 

From NRA ILA:

Senate Bill 5737 [wa.gov], just introduced by state Senators Ed Murray (D-43) and Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), would ban the sale of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms. This bill would ban the manufacture, transfer, possession, purchase and sale of firearms arbitrarily defined as “assault weapons”, semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, based on mainly cosmetic features.

SB 5737 would also ban the possession of any semiautomatic firearm along with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. A violation of these, and other provisions listed in the bill, is a class C felony. Owners of these firearms could keep them IF they subjected themselves to annual in-home inspections by law enforcement and complied with stringent and impractical storage and transportation requirements.

Are you angling for a government job? Guard in a re-education camp maybe?

Actually, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any law that is unconstitutional.

I realize you don't think any gun laws are unconstitutional. KKK politicians like Robert Byrd didn't think forced segregation and other racist laws were unconstitutional either.

That only makes sense if you believe in the absolute power of the majority to do anything.

And every military officer too. And I suspect that many officers through enlisted (not the political flag officers, of course) will refuse as well.

this is not about "anything." this is about the majority decide that while certain guns are legal, certain other guns are not. and some want to commit violence against the gov.

In the United States, there is something called a separation of powers, which includes a lawmaking branch of government that makes the laws and a judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws. Local police officers and sheriffs were never given a veto power over our civilian government per the U.S. Constiution, fortunately. And as mentioned, there were periods in history, especially during fuedal times, when the local sheriffs were judge, jury, and executioner. A gun and a set of handcuffs is not nearly the same as legal training, popular election, or appointment to a judgeship.

Sweet lord. Government where everyone makes the rules has a name. It's called anarchy.

Government that breaks its social contract with the people and engages in denying fundamental rights has a name, it's called tyranny.

Now, by all means demonstrate where anyone suggested going without any government or any rules of law? That is after all the definition of anarchy. Those that would oppose such law simply oppose a government that neither reflects the will of the people, nor does it stay within the constitution that defines the scope of influence said government may have. Some forget that the government serves at the will and convenience of the people, not the other way around.

The inherent problem with enacting such a law, is if the people end up essentially at war with those in law enforcement, anarchy could very well result, pending government handling things in a way the people find acceptable and law enforcement not encroaching on the rights of the people.

I tend to think in general that local law enforcement will not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, and state troopers will have to be the ones to enforce it. Right up until those subjected to this law create a database of where state troopers live, Then even they will not want to enforce it.

Hooray States' rights.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGEN...ution.aspx

Actually they were, and it was quite explicit [wikipedia.org]:
Considering the Constitution was meant to limit the powers of the Federal government, the inclusion of the 10th would give that veto power to the respective States.

Now where in the Constitution does it give the Feds power to force the States into enforcing Federal law?

What if police decided that they no longer wanted to enforce the Fourth Amendment? (Some argue that this is already partially the case.) They could enter your home at will. They could seize your property. What if the police did not want to enforce laws against the unlawful killing of another person? They could shoot you on the site without threat of repercussion. Before tossing around concepts about "breaking the social contract" and "tyrrany," you should really consider the significance of these terms. The threshold for a breakdown of the social contract does not mean having to comply with a law you don't like or not liking the result of an election. There is much more at stake here than to be so arbitrary about invoking these words.

One definition of anarchy is "mob rule." By letting police officers, fire fighters, and whomever else has taken an oath supplant judge, jury, and democratically-elected officials is de facto mob rule, in my opinion. Heck, I've taken several oaths. (I'm not a law enforcement officer either.) Does that mean I get to decide what's constitutional? We can all actually take a SlickDeal oath to uphold the Constitution right now.

Exactly. That's why we vote. We are not a police state. We do not let sheriffs and police officers govern us.

This empowers state government. It does not refer to state and local police.

Who do you think they work for if not the state government?

The fourth is a codified limit to their authority, not a law for them to enforce. Yes, they could engage in killing the populace, without internal consequences... but, I assure you the social consequences for that would not bode well for them.

You are correct that there is much at stake here, though. The relationship between the government and the people is reaching a point of significant change in one direction or another. It will either mean that the constitution will become even more meaningless than it is currently, or it will become stronger than it has been in decades.

The difference is, I believe the problem would occur after an attempt to enforce such a law, and you believe it comes with refusal to enforce it. You have to come to your own conclusions as to what you believe is constitutional, and your reactions to it (and deal with whatever the consequences are).

Police officers are more than governmental thugs (or at least should be). They are tasked with ensuring that peace/order are maintained, and that they follow constitutional laws and orders from those above them. Just following orders does not excuse actions, when one should know the orders themselves were never legal to begin with.

Lack of enforcement is not equivalent to explicit engagement.

If the Feds pass a law in which slavery is again legal, do you put fault in local/State forces that refuse to enforce the law?

If it does pass, it won't pass referendum.

so you're on record as a supporter of murder of government officials and violent anarchy.

Is killing an enemy in warfare considered murder? I'm not opposed to killing anyone in self defense, regardless of their choice in apparel and occupation.

Part of the reason I oppose said law, is because I believe it would result in anarchy, when people willfully disobey such a law due to unconstitutionality and defend themselves from oppression. Enforcing such a law destroys the relationship between law enforcement and the community that they are supposed to protect.

There is a difference between opposing something so vigorously as to not be opposed to violence in defiance, and outright opposing law and order in whole cloth.

You are now on record as misrepresenting someone else said entirely now, though.

is killing a government official who is upholding the law equal to war?

you oppose the law because you believe it will result in anarchy, yet you promote the idea of anarchy as a means to counteract the law. "this law will lead to anarchy, so we must use anarchy to prevent this law from being enforced." (i notice this is similar to the republican's logic on spending -- "we must stop government spending because if we don't stop government spending the government will have to stop spending", but i digress.)

You are of course, completely oblivious to the oaths and responsibilities of law enforcement officers, and the military as well, as ConservativeNYer pointed out.

Which isn't surprising.

I would guess that if the correct group of persons were enslaved, they would indeed.

If you want me to take you seriously enough to provide a genuine response, take the time to actually read what I say and reply on it. If you genuinely believe what I said equates to what you are responding to, you obviously would not comprehend a genuine response to this drivel.

No. The people who want to ban "assault weapons" either don't know what an assault weapon is or they want to ban all guns. Period

Absolutely! You need years of legal training from "experts" such as Elena Kagan and Laurence Tribe to learn that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" refers to a "collective right," while due process creates "penumbras and emanations" that create a Constitutional right to sodomize whomever you want or to kill your unborn baby at any stage of gestation.

It's an oath to uphold a constitution that gives them no special right to usurp the laws of our democratically elected government. Elmer, if you take the SlickDeals Oath to Defend the U.S. Constitution™ with me, maybe we can decide which laws we want to follow too.;)

Again, everyone has to follow their consciences, make their own judgments, and deal with the consequences.

I'd say it depends.

Seems to me that a Nazi invading France or Poland, shooting enemies, would very closely resemble 'murder', whereas, a Polish or French person shooting Nazis would not closely resemble 'murder', rather it would be considered self-defense.

If the law of our democratically elected government are clearly immoral, in opposition to natural law, and in opposition to the constitution, they are illegitimate laws and the first priority is to restore the proper, constitutional government.

The constitution isn't that complicated or hard to interpret. Read some Locke, Jefferson, Mason, Madison, etc. and you pretty much have it. It only becomes hard and complicated when we want to find things that aren't there. That takes a lot of education and intelligence.

How is it an irrational fear when it is happening right now?
That would be an example of why "anti-gun" people often aren't anti-gun. They are pro-gun, but only pro-gun for government agents to then stick their guns in your face to take away your guns and spread tyranny.
Oh is that all.

Hmm, an "assault weapons ban" is a ban and already mandates taking guns away from people.
A sheriff has tremendous law-enforcement powers. But only in his county.

What was that one from last year or so... I think it was Arizona and federal thugs coming to take a farmer's cattle from his private property because of a water rights dispute between the farmer and the government. The sheriff and deputies told the feds if you try to take those cows you will be met with our SWAT team. The feds then decided they wouldn't take the cows.

:facepalm:
Have you participated in the "compromise" thread? There is a lack of compromise ideas from those who want to restrict guns.

The radical we-hate-guns people are so extreme and unreasonable they never really compromise on anything. They just take and take and take. They don't even offer up no more waiting periods or something for a compromise, even though such a thing is basically a non-issue compared to something like limiting mag capacity to 7.
Is that what that was a few months back? :lol:

Wash. state bill would make almost all gun owners criminals
http://www.examiner.com/article/w...-criminals
Morons.

An outright ban of firearms is too complicated.

Dems can effectively soft 'ban' firearms the same way Republicans do it for abortion in super red states by making the gun purchase / ownership process complex enough to deter it.

i figured you already weren't being serious. good to know you seriously do advocate for the killing of those trying to uphold the law.

nobama, quick question for you. What do you think of the Fraternal Order of Police being gun-grabbers?

http://fromthetrenchesworldreport...nny/35144/

yes, only morons would continue to break the law after this bill passes. hopefully smart citizens will disarm themselves in the meantime.

Yes. "Compromise" is a great way for pro-gun folks to try and frame the debate, but it's not the reality of the current policy push. Gun control advocates think that there are too many guns that are too easily available without adequate safety measures. Allowing more concealed carry or open carry or bigger magazines (some of the things that were mentioned in the compromise thread) do nothing to help gun control policy goals.

Despite getting trounced in the last election, the NRA is one of the most successful special interest groups in the history of politics. They managed to make just about every elected official too scared to talk about gun control in the 2000s. That is no easy feat. In many states, they've even managed to help roll back gun restrictions as well.

No, it commands them to resist any attack on the Constitution.

I already swore an oath to defend the Constitution many years ago. More than once actually.

I took it seriously enough to risk my life for. Not something you'd likely understand.

Actually, "compromise" is how gun-grabbers frame the debate despite them not wanting to compromise on anything. The compromise gun thread here looks to be a good example. No one has even offered up potential compromise.

Pro-rights people have been compromising for years. It got them banned machine guns, assault weapon bans, 7-round capacity limits, waiting periods, one-gun-a-month restrictions, permits needed to carry thus turning a right into a privilege....

The radical, extreme, unreasonable gun-grabbers pretend to be about "compromise," but they're not. They'll just keep coming and coming. Yesterday it was machine guns and capacity limits. Today it is "assault weapons." Tomorrow it will be handguns. The day after that it will be deer rifles. The day after that the "compromise" will be shotguns. I doubt they'll even "compromise" on allowing muskets despite them often saying how that's the only thing the Second Amendment refers to.

The FOP is largely an East Coast, virtual union organization, that seeks to win favor from politicians. They have repeatedly resisted polling their national membership on their opinions on gun control. State chapters however, have made their opposition to some of the national headquarters's positions.

http://www.utahfop.com/home/fop-gun-position/

Politicians have learned to trade perks with police unions, as they have with other unions, for support on a wide variety of issues, many that the members themselves wouldn't support.

The synopsis of the bill in the article is a bit off base - it makes it out that any rifle which has any stock will be classified as an assault weapon and banned. Reading the actual text of the bill, that is not the case. "Traditional" stocks are not included in that at all (bold mine):

Muzzle brakes, pistol grips, etc are only banned if the rifle has a detachable mag that accepts more than 10 rounds.

Seems pretty similar to the other state laws banning "assault weapons"

What's to keep everyone from administering oaths that commands them to ignore laws that they don't like? Last time I checked, the Constitution does not say that oaths are the supreme laws of the land either.

You're not the only one who did this despite what you may think about your own exceptionalism. In my experience, the people who talk about their patriotism the most are the ones who have typically sacraficed the least. It doesn't make you a judge either.

I hope this passes, I'm going to make a killing on AR pinky finger trigger mods.

"No." What per cent of MO firearms do you claim is captured by the MO proposed bill?

Is this what you call "picking up arms"? :lol:

The WA ban has been pushed since 2010, it won't pass, and if it does, it won't pass referendum. It's just posturing.

My oaths were administered by the government, despite your unfamiliarity with them and disdain for the concept..

I've neither claimed nor think anything I've done was exclusive to me, despite your attempt to falsely portray it that way.

I talk very little about my patriotism. I responded to your lack of knowledge about the responsibilities and promises made by those who serve.

In my experience, those who have the most disdain for the constitution, are unlikely to sacrifice for anything.

I hope you're correct, but that was the general consensus among many about the 1989 CA AWB.

And yet it strangely appears that you're not exactly sure what your oaths meant, since the very document you swore to protect provides that we are a representative democracy, not a police or military state. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of sheriffs or vigilantes. The citizens of the United States, gun owning and non-gun owning alike, elect their lawmakers.

You responded with the usual leering ad hominem, hoisted upon your patriotism on that occasion. If you want to double down by invoking our men and women in uniform to support your political agenda and further discredit yourself, then so be it.

And those lawmakers are still bound by the Constitution they pledged an oath to uphold. Just because they pass an Unconstitutional law, doesn't mean they can also force a requirement of 100% compulsion.

Problem is, individuals don't get to decide Constitutionality.

What is the point of having me swear to uphold something I'm not allowed to make decisions on? You might as well have everyone who takes an oath to uphold the constitution instead take an oath to follow instructions of some guy who you designated as the constitutional interpreter. It is as irrational to say individuals can't decide on constitutionality as it was for the church to keep the bible out of the language of the lay persons. Nothing more dangerous than thinking individuals, right? :vomit: Individuals in office around the country take an oath that makes them responsible individually to interpret the thing. Sorry, but we aren't all a bunch of Little Eichmanns.

Sorry, the province of deciding Constitutionality lies with educated professionals that have official authority based on appointment by democratically elected officials.

If your interpretation conflicts, you lose.

In the end, it truly is the people that determine it, particularly if they are large enough in numbers, and willing to stand their ground without backing down. The whole point of the second amendment is to allow the people to stand up to the government, and not allow the government to keep encroaching ad nauseum.

It's there as a fail safe, to ostensibly keep the government from systematically encroaching on civil liberties.

It's silly to think puny civilian weapons can beat the US Army in a revolution to over throw the government.

If there are "large enough numbers" the SCOTUS can be changed over 30-40 years, but it would be dreaming to believe the gun rights crowd has that kind of majority or will for the foreseeable future.

You guys are passionate, but not near a majority have that kind of passion. And it is that passion that makes you believe otherwise.

I agree we are supposed to have official interpreters of the law. But they are still mere men, and have failed quite a bit and even changed their minds (as an institution) on a number of issues. In the mean time, the other branches of government (the actually elected officials) are supposed to correctly interpret the constitution, and uphold it as they have sworn to do. And if they fail in their duty, it falls to the real power, the people. As I said before, it isn't complicated or tricky, until you want to find something that isn't there, or ignore something that is.

And it was the same when lawmakers passed laws that restricted the rights of Americans by the color of their skin.

Those who supported the Constitution, would have been bound to resist such laws as well, and many did.

In opposition to people who thought like you.

No, I'll just ignore your dishonest deflections, and bullshit insinuations.

You must be very thankful for Mr. Gore's invention.

Reading some posts here, it's easy to understand how the Eichmann's were able to operate, isn't it?

As a legally uneducated layman, they do not have the expertise nor the authority to determine Constitutionality. We have one official interpretation (at a time).

Who are you, or anyone else, to say their's is superior?

You acknowlege the failure of the officials, will you also acknowlege the failure of the untrained?

It's pathetic to accept the unacceptable, and subhuman to allow it to happen without fighting against it.

The government serves at the will of the people; when the people determine the government no longer serves that purpose, it is up to them to remove it.

You are assuming that it will always be as it is now, I assume that eventually people will reach a limit to their endurance and tolerance of government encroachment.

Not everything is academic. Some things are self evident. When a machine does not work, and defies fixing... You replace it.

Yes, I acknowledge the untrained can also fail. If you read my posts closely you'd notice I'm not talking about simple failure. I'm talking about people who have become so well educated that they are able to find ways to ignore things they don't like and see things that aren't there. That sort of mental contortion goes beyond simple error. Almost any interpretation is superior to that, because it is dishonest, not merely ignorant.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Do you find the constitution in any way confusing or difficult to read or understand? I can understand a few little disagreements here and there, but the larger spirit of the document is perfectly clear.

And to understand from which part of humanity they were found.

But who/what entity is empowered with interpreting our constitution? If every branch, every politician is empowered with interpreting the constitution as they see it, then why do we even have a supreme court?

let me ask a more pointed question: what's your interpretation of the meaning of the vote of office? When a politician swears to uphold the constitution, would it be as they interpret the Constitution or as the SCOTUS interprets it?

This, IMO, is the fundamental question. Say on a matter of gun law, the local sheriff disagrees with the SCOTUS. Do you think their oath to uphold the Constitution means they are entitled to follow their own interpretation or that of the SCOTUS? And if the former, then why do we even have a supreme court? If the former, then how could we even pretend that we are a nation of laws and not of every man?

Indeed.

How were any of the German servicemembers to decide what to do?

I mean after all, they had courts and politicians that were in charge of deciding for them. They couldn't just interpret anything for themselves. They would no longer be a nation of laws then, right?

The SCOTUS should settle disputes in law as outlined in the constitution.

Other offices should defer to it. That said, we have a problem when the court blatantly misinterprets things to the point that even the lay persons begin to notice. At that point, congress should move to impeach. Having primary authority to interpret is not the same as exclusive authority. The best solution is for congress to remove judges when they behave in an immoral manner.

I'm not arguing against the need for the SCOTUS, or its powers and purpose. My point goes to the remediation of judges behaving badly. If congress passes a law limiting religion, the president enforces it, and the SCOTUS upholds it, local and state offices should recognize it for the unlawful and immoral tripe it is and do everything possible to fight it. They shouldn't become Little Eichmanns. The next, slower step is for the populace to vote moral persons into office who can repeal the law and in time the judges will be replaced.

And worse yet, how can they have been convicted in international courts when they were clearly upholding the law (or orders) that were given to them. And on the grounds of what? Crimes against humanity? What quaint notions. Surely they should have called it what it was: whoever wins and is in power gets to do anything he likes.

Clearly there are many who will just keep acquiescing, as long as they keep getting their share of others property.

Earlier in the thread it was an appeal to false patriotism, and now gun control is being likened to Nazism and Jim Crow. Godwin's law is truly alive and well.

Ah, bookburning. Rejection of intellectuals and academics was a big part of the Nazi movement.

The gun carrying lawmen and militias of the deep south sure didn't have a problem inflicting their brand of justice, both legal and extra-legal, on racial minorities. You might want to read what the Southern Poverty Law Center and other expert civil rights organizations have to say about the Oath Keepers organization and other fringe groups if you truly believe there's a connection between these concepts.

How ironic, that in your pseudo-intellectual attempts to attack and deflect, you invoke those who first used gun control laws [davekopel.com] in an attempt to control others in this country.

I have no doubt you would have been a big supporter of those Democrats as well.

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...............

Keep reaching. Nazism. Racism. Why not go for the conspiracy theory trifecta and connect gun control to 9/11 too?

FOP does not speak for all LEO's.

I don't have to reach for anything.... you're doing a great job of making my points for me.

You are oblivious to the fact that the earliest gun control laws in this country, were enacted by the Southern racists you invoked.

But you just keep feeling smug in your cluelessness.....

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

Southern Poverty Law Center. :lol:

Damn, I just saw an article the other day quoting one of the head people there saying something like they only got into it so they can make lots of money. Oh well, I'll have to settle for these articles instead:

Emails Expose Collusion at Highest Levels between Department of Justice and Communist SPLC
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.co...-splc.html
http://www.newswithviews.com/bald...win739.htm
I'll throw this last one in for fun.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/07...ervatives/

I know, I know..... you were just following orders.....

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...top-search.jpg

It's clear there's plenty of folks here that would have imprisoned anyone who said something like this...




"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

No, actually, it's not.

It is our duty as citizens to ensure our constitution is being upheld by our government.


At all costs.

More gun-grabbers who are dumber than a box of rocks.

Democrats Seek to Ban Hunting Ammunition in Wisconsin
http://www.redstate.com/briansikm...um=twitter

Fine. But let's be honest about what's happening there. A local sheriff disregarding the SCOTUS and/or disobeying the POTUS are no longer upholding their oath of office but rather some other principle.

And at that point an honorable sheriff should resign before taking arms against or even disobeying the gov.

Yes, let's compare our country, a democracy, to a fascist state where it's practically impossible for the average citizen to have a political say in anything. That's a fair comparison. :rolleyes:

Unlike with a fascist state, there are many checks and balances in place in the US to ensure things don't go too far out of balance. We don't need a bunch of vigilantes taking action just because things aren't going their way. We already saw this crap happen with the events leading up to the Civil War and we don't need it to happen again.

Now I can see why you guys are constantly clinging onto your guns and arguing the need for them in case of tyranny. For you guys, tyranny is when your side loses too many elections in a row and too many laws that you don't like get passed.

The Bill of Rights (BOR) was designed to enumerate rights that every American possesses in all states. A state cannot invalidate your 1A right to freedom of religion, for example. States' rights is explained in the constitution where it says that everything not mentioned therein is left to the states & people. The 2A IS mentioned therein, so states' rights don't apply here in terms of restricting guns further. States can recognize additional rights or enact laws over things not mentioned in the Constitution, but not enact items that infringe upon the BOR.

The OP posted the link & text of the bill outlining exactly the all caps statement. Whether it passes or not, it has, in reality, been introduced. Not so irrational when it's reality.

But doesn't the Constitution say that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter?

Hitler was elected.
The calls of tyranny sure are slow then since until 1994 Democrats pretty much controlled Congress for 60 years.

Exactly.

Additionally, my concern is that the wording of the bill will set a bad precedent that authors of similar bills in other states will want to follow.

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.

And if you don't have the right to any/all weapons, then obviously we have ceded the right to decide to the government.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It's the mirror image argument of abortion. Opponents hate it because it has been found largely legal by the Supreme Court, so instead they go to states to try to put as many regulations on it as possible because they (by virtue of the power of the state) know what's better for someone they've never met than they do. And they'll use the force of government to get what they want.

Post hoc.

Won't someone think of the children?

I'm not aware of any Sheriff's oath, but none of the federal oaths I'm aware of mention the SCOTUS, and they all place the Constitution before the POTUS. The state oaths I'm aware of might mention the POTUS, usually mention the Constitution, and never mention the SCOTUS. Yes, chain of command is good, and following the law is good. But when the law conflicts with the Constitution or Law, one doesn't go along with it just because the SCOTUS says it is ok.

This is why the questions you asked...

... are not the fundamental question. The fundamental question is why have a Constitution if the SCOTUS can simply interpret anything they like into the thing, making someone like you happy that it is the law of the land? What is the point of having a written law if we are reduced to an Oligarchy of the Court which gets the final say in all matters of law, no matter what the rest of us clearly read and understand?

Only strange to those who haven't bothered to look up the meaning of "well regulated."

One war has its Loyalists, one its Eichmann's. They always seem to carry the same arguments, don't they?

Not a Democracy, please play again....
Assuming you are talking about the war between the states, are you talking about the vigilantes that were freeing slaves, or the vigilantes that were trying to get them back? Just curious, as both sides were breaking laws to uphold laws.
No, tyranny is unrestrained and arbitrary use of power, as in no one following the Law (big law, constitution, etc.) even though it is simple and clear to read. It is oppressive power that stomps on individual rights and civil liberties. It often travels with the henchmen named "it's the law" or "just following orders."

Indeed no oath that I know of includes SCOTUS. And I am guessing the oaths that might mention the POTUS would be for those who are in the military or in the law enforcement.

But as you mentioned many oaths do include loyalty to and protection of the US Constitution. But here is the crucial point: the US Constitution says the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of what is or what is not constitutional. Therefore, imo, a sheriff who ignores the ruling of the SCOTUS and follows his own interpretation is violating his oath to protect the constitution as our constitution says the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter. A society that allows every local sheriff to follow their own interpretation of the Constitution over a supreme court is a society that cannot claim to be of law and order.

Again.....I acknowledge the ethical dilemma of a local sheriff who truly believes the orders and ruling of the SCOTUS is unconstitutional or wrong or immoral or whatever and when a local sheriff follows his own interpretation against that of the SCOTUS he should just drop the pretense that he is following his oath and resign his position or at least rescind his oath before taking arms against gov.

As long as we have rather free elections, it would be preposterous if not comical for a local sheriff to claim that he is upholding the constitution by ignoring the orders of the SOCTUS and taking arms against a freely elected gov..

The oath for LEO's varies according to each jurisdiction and is written and administered by that jurisdiction's chief, sheriff or elected officials for that jurisdiction. Every oath that I have heard or read about in various jurisdictions were all different, and while all included upholding the Constitution, virtually none that I can recall mentioned the POTUS.

We are a democracy! The fact that you can drag your ass to the polls and vote for the president makes us a democracy. Maybe we are not a direct democracy, but we are a democracy.
I'm talking about how Southerns took it upon themselves to secede due to Lincoln getting elected.

Yes, in theory you're right, but some people will interpret what you said as not getting the things they want through elections.

Back to my fundamental question, why have a Constitution if the SCOTUS is the exclusive arbiter? There is a balance here. I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. Every local sheriff and every citizen does not get to decide for himself. On the flip, the SCOTUS, it should be acknowledged, is capable of erring. Hopefully when they do it will be in the gray area where it doesn't throw the country into chaos.

That would depend on the nature of his oath. Sheriff being a local office, assuming the local population still wants him to hold it, I see no reason he would resign, as long as he serves at the pleasure of that local body.

Freely elected can still by tyrannical. The fact that we are a Republic and our supreme law is the Constitution means the government is only legitimate in as far is it remains within the bounds of the Constitution. And here I'll defer back to my "fundamental question" counter to yours.

Republic. There is a difference. The fact that you don't know the difference makes me believe you have been subject to indoctrination (educated in the public school system in the past 40 years, or worse yet, studied some form of humanities in a university) and have not taken the time to self educate.
Seceding was fine, and does not a vigilante make. Taking it upon themselves to then fire the first shots and invade the north in a preemptive manner was folly. But then again, perhaps we don't want that discussion in this thread...
And those I will not support, and will take up arms against as required.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

:thumbup:

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. :lol:

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.

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.
That's a bummer. We just go out in the hills a mile down the road. No waiting there.
They are outnumbered in the liberal ranks.

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

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

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.
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.

The point is that the POTUS is not the chain of command for a sheriff. His authority extends only to federal governance. Just as the three branches at the federal level are independent and retain certain powers, so do the states. Just as the three branches are subject to the others in certain respects, so the states and federal are subject to each other in certain respects.
I agree with the point until the SCOTUS makes an obviously wrong and egregious ruling. At that point, other federal mechanisms need to correct the situation if the federal government is to remain legitimate and within the law. The Constitution is our highest law, but even the framers of the Constitution pointed to higher laws. Please see the Declaration of Independence.

I will be sure to do so.

When I was younger we would just walk out of the house and go shooting in the woods. Our nearest neighbor was >500 feet away. I miss being able to just go shoot.

That is correct. Armed resistance against a government hell bent on ignoring the constitution is not treason. The constitution was created with that very event in mind.

To me this is a minor point. i am not gonna insist that the chain of command of a local sheriff goes through the POTUS. But i recall that the POTUS can issue orders to national guards. (Do you agree with that?) At any rate we have federal police (FBI) and federal Marshall who are under the POTUS. Or do you claim that the local sheriff trumps the FBI? So IMO whether or not a local sheriff is under the POTUS is a moot point.
"Obviously wrong" according to whom? Say a local sheriff disagrees with the SCOTUS, the POTUS and both Houses of Congress. So what? Who should prevail?

Look, I totally understand your point. Say on one side there is this guy who says abortion is murder and on the other side, there is the local prosecutor, the governor, the state law, the SCOTUS, both Houses and the POTUS who say abortion is a right. Fine, I think the guy can take a gun and shoot an abortion doctor in the back or in the head in order to save innocent unborn "babies." Fine, but (1) he is outside of the law and will pay the price, and (2) he can no longer claim he is following the Constitution as the constitution says the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter. Sure he can invoke a higher law, God, or natural law but he cannot legitimately claim he is following the Constitution. People could praise the murderer but according to our laws he is a murderer.

If we do not have order we cannot say we are a nation of laws. If the SCOTUS/POTUS/FBI can be contradicted by a local sheriff, it would be hollow to then claim that we are a nation of laws.

Compromise thread?? ;)
**cough** Sanctuary cities **cough**

The county sheriff is the highest ranking LEO in his county, above the FBI, Federal Marshalls, etc. He is an elected official and is accountable only to his constituents in his county, the exception being if he violates statutory law.

http://www.sheriffs.org/content/office-sheriff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sher...ted_States

So the FBI/ATF is set to search the house of a person suspected of having an illegal assault weapon and the local sheriff believes such law is unconstitutional. He can tell the FBI/ATF to fvck off? Or can be arrested for obstruction of justice because as you said, "the exception being if he violates statutory law"?

I'll defer to this:

Order does not equal law. Chain of command leading back to SCOTUS/POTUS does not equal law. We seem to be arguing in circles here. The law, the written down Constitution, was meant to be interpreted by everyone. Understood by all. Hell, it was ratified by the states. It, our government, gains its power from the consent of you and me. When you and I disagree with the SCOTUS/POTUS we have many methods of rectifying the situation. A sheriff can't say "red means blue" and get away with it any more than the SCOTUS can. In the Heller and McDonald cases, for instance, had the SCOTUS not ruled that the point of the 2nd A. was to guarantee our right to posses firearms, it would have been "obviously wrong."

Personally, I think there is a bit of gray area about whether an individual has a right to possess an artillery battery, as that sort of power probably belongs to localities and sheriffs and the like. Then again, it might be fun to set one up if I had 1000 acres to use for defense of my property. So if they did rule that I couldn't possess such a system, it wouldn't be "obviously wrong" to me. It would merely be "wrong" and I'd follow the procedure of lobbying my congressman.

Say a court rules such that you consider it "obviously wrong." Say also that another person considers that ruling "obviously right". Under our Constitution, under our system of government, what is your right? Our system says you can appeal the ruling or lobby your congressman to pass new laws. But once you are rejected by the SCOTUS, that is the end for your appeal.

It seems that much is obvious. So now say you still think the SCOTUS is "obviously wrong" and you have also failed to convince others to join you to support a new law/amendment. So now what to do? I say the Constitution has no more suggestions for you. You are of course allowed to ignore the Constitution, follow your conscience and take arms up against the gov. What you, or the local sheriff, cannot IMO claim is that you are defending the Constitution when you do that as the Constitution says the ultimate arbiter/interpreter of the Constitution is the SCOTUS. At that point you are following something apparently you consider to be above our laws.

If and when we say every single person can have and follow their own interpretation and UNDER OUR SYSTEM may use arms and resist the gov, then indeed we no longer have laws and we are not a nation of laws anymore.

You are right, we are going in circles. I think I have said very little new stuff here. So unless you say something new, please forgive me if I no longer repeat what I have already said.

Perhaps deep down we only differ in semantics but perhaps it is deeper than that. I am not sure.

The sheriff is empowered to enforce state and local law, not federal law, and the feds have no statutory authority to enforce state or local laws.

If the FBI/ATF is searching a house, it would be for a violation of federal law and pursuant to a search warrant issued by a federal prosecutor and signed by a federal judge. In most situations (rarely an exception), the feds contact the local sheriff or PD and inform him or his dept. of impending action and request their assistance, or if assistance is not needed, just for informational purposes. This is where the sheriff can refuse at his discretion and is under absolutely no legal compulsion to assist or be any part of the proceedings, and he can tell the feds that they are on their own if he chooses to do so. If the sheriff interferes with that lawful search, then the sheriff is in violation of the law.

Since the sheriff (and his deputies) cannot make an arrest for a federal crime in the absence of a similar state or local statute or in the absence of a specific federal statutory empowerment, the proper procedure is to inform the feds of a known violation of a federal law, etc. and let the feds conduct a follow up investigation and make the arrest and subsequent prosecution. The sheriff has no responsibility to inform the feds of anything (unless specifically mandated by federal law), and in the AWB situation, he can legally ignore violations of the federal law, and refuse to inform the feds of violations.

One last thing - it's not like they show in the movies or TV where the sheriff or his deputies or the local PD are involved in an investigation of a state or local crime and then the FBI or other federal agency shows up and says they are taking over because they don't approve of the way it's being conducted, etc. That doesn't happen unless the sheriff allows it or requests it, and only if there is a violation of federal law involved, and the sheriff is totally within the scope of his authority to tell the feds to get out and that he alone is in charge of the incident. In that unlikely situation the feds must comply since the sheriff "outranks" them in his county, and they certainly can conduct their own separate investigation, but they are not empowered to forcibly take charge. The sheriff can however at any time request assistance from the feds for an investigation, and he equally can refuse to do so.

Misstep in gun bill could defeat the effort
 

http://seattletimes.com/html/loca...17xml.html

This is how they enact legislation that affects and could potentially make criminals out of thousands of law-abiding citizens - "signing on" without closely reading their own bills.... Disgusting. :vomit:

I defer to your experience and your knowledge on what you answered. But you did not explicitly answer the question that I asked. Here it is again, somewhat modified and abbreviated:

So the FBI/ATF is set to search the house of a person suspected of having an illegal, according to federal laws, assault weapon and the local sheriff believes such law is unconstitutional. He can tell the FBI/ATF to fvck off? Or can be arrested for obstruction of justice in he interferes?

I wrote that post trying to answer that question in an informative way, and thought it did....

The answer: No and yes.

If he believes the law is unconstitutional he does not have to participate in a federal action, since that is the only way the feds will legally be searching someone's house. If he interferes he certainly can be prosecuted by the feds.

Well I did not quite see the "no" part but I thanks you for the explicit answer.

In the earlier post you said the sheriff does not have a duty to even inform the feds of violations of federal law unless the a federal laws explicitly requires such notification. So apparently, according to you, the sheriffs of this nation are bound by federal laws. So I assume by extension they are bound by SCOTUS orders/interpretations too.

So say a federal law requires that sheriffs must notify the feds when they arrest people for bootlegging. Now say a lone sheriff believes such a law is unconstitutional. So he appeals the law all the way to the SCOTUS and he loses. You agree that then he is obligated to fulfill the requirement of the said federal law. Right?

They are "bound" by federal laws to the same extent that any US citizen is.

Within the scope of their duties, they cannot take enforcement action for violations of those laws unless statutorily authorized or mandated by law to do so.

SCOTUS "orders": Does the SCOTUS create legislation? No.

SCOTUS "interpretations": The sheriff cannot legally act or perform an action that is unconstitutional, and he cannot legally fail to perform an action that creates an unconstitutional situation.

IMH lack-of-lawyer-expertise Opinion ^ ^ ^

IMH lack-of-lawyer-expertise Opinion: I believe that would be true, on the face value of the example.

However, if he felt that strongly on the issue, he most likely would simply not arrest anyone for bootlegging (if that were a violation of state or county statutes to begin with). End of "federal" problem.

I don't think Gun Control will pass in any form but that did not stop me from running to my local gun dealer, who had a shipment of 33rd Round Glock 17 Magazines in $33 bucks amazing deal.

I got 2.

I think you need to read up on Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org] where the SCOTUS gave itself the power to interpret the Constitution.

The Constitution is not so much a contract as a set of rules limiting the federal government. There wasn't really a 2nd party to be the "federal government" during its inception, negotiate its terms, sign on the dotted line, etc. It was a unilateral mandate, in effect. That imagined 2nd party today can't erase the BOR b/c it sees fit, even if activist judges think so. The BOR is pretty clear, and the right of the people is clearly outlined the same in every item therein.

Well if it was that clear, we wouldn't really be having this conversation and there wouldn't have to be untold zillions of pages of case law clarifying to the nth degree since then.

Colorado Democrat's war on women:

http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2...-be-raped/

Colorado House passes gun-control measures [reuters.com]

All of that case law tells me it's very clear someone {government} wants the power the people have the right to.

How does preventing permit holders from carrying on a college campus protect anyone?

Rapists don't need to worry about getting shot.

Paraphrasing a few of the Democrat lawmakers at the third reading a 21-22 year old student cannot be expected to handle the pressures of school, being away from home and firearm ownership at the same time. It seems to be an undue burden for students, faculty and staff to bear.

It's a handy Rorschach test. You'll see whatever fits your world view.

Hmm, why the edit, not that either had any relevance.

Some (and by some I mean you) interpret the case law to mean that government wants more power. Others would disagree.

It looks like more states (led by democrats) are going to be hastening to legislate more gun restrictions.

I have no doubt that others will attempt to follow...

Yer going to see bills pushed in all them blue states. Gonna be a lot of $$$ behind that effort.

good for colorado.

Which of these new rules will help Colorado? Earlier I asked if the prohibition on concealed carry on campuses would help anything. Do you think it will?

It will help mass murderers, rapists, etc. It helped the shooters at Columbine, VT, Sandy Hook, and every other mass shooting since 1950 with the exception of one. Will it help the victims? No. Disarming victims does not help them.

My prediction is that as usual, democrats will totally screw up their own states, and then move away and vote dem politicians in different areas, farking up the country like modern day locusts...

It's always a win win for the anti gun politicians.

After crime and homicide dropped dramatically after gun laws were relaxed, they claimed they needed to pass more gun control.

If crime and homicide goes up after this, they'll claim they need to pass more gun control.

Just like their "anti-poverty" programs.

Hooray!

Oh wow. I hope they oppose everything man made created for hunting then.

yes, i think it will.

It was a two part question. Still to be more clear, which of new rules will help and how?

preventing people from carrying on college campuses will help those who could potentially be shot by people carrying on college campuses.

So to that I have two follow up questions.
1. Does it stop someone who doesn't care about the law or thinks they won't get caught?
2. Since currently only permit holders were allowed to carry, were they problematic to begin with?

no.

yes.

3. Why would one want to defend themselves with a pencil in a gun fight?

DHS says you should use scissors. They even made a how-to video about it.

Interesting. I wonder why they are requisitioning "Personal Defense Weapons", instead of scissors, then?

Ok. More follow up.
1. The stuff I have read says that permit holders are not the problematic users of guns. What information do you have that contradicts this impression?

2. How is the law effective if the people that we need to explicitly forbid (those who intend to cause harm with guns) are those least likely to follow the rules? This seems to back the view that gun free zones are not effective. How would you address the issue of those who, prior to this law, couldn't legally take guns onto school grounds taking guns onto school grounds?

Gun bill giving sheriff right to inspect homes pulled by Washington lawmakers

They don't even read the bills that they shove through..... :vomit:

The problem is, they hadn't broken it down into the several bills necessary to achieve their goals yet. They got impatient, and cocky... They forgot they need to whittle our freedoms away in piecemeal.

That's exactly correct. I've corresponded with one of the sponsors of this bill and that describes him exactly. He is a very cocky jerk. His goal was to poke a stick in the eye of the law-abiding gun owner and NRA members, who he despises. The sponsors thought they had a slam-dunk with the political climate the way it currently is, so much so that he didn't even need to read the bill prior to submitting it. The problem is that their amended version that they will re-submit will be almost as bad, but minus the "inspection" clause. They'll come up with a work-around on that one.

I'm honestly a bit shocked that this sort of thing even has a shot in passing. Granted it's been about 20 years or so since I've lived in WA, but I recall it as a firearms friendly state... I always believed the crime rate was low due to half the state or so packing.

I'm guessing it's going to get worse before it gets better. I don't envy law enforcement in being placed in the position it is likely to find itself in, being essentially at war with the populace. I guess we'll find out who the oath keepers are soon enough.

Almost all of the elected sheriffs here on the east side will have a disagreement with this legislation, but I have doubts about some of the ones on the liberal west side. There has been grumblings about splitting the state between the liberal west side and the more conservative east side for a long time, and if legislation such as this passes, then I can forsee a renewed push for that.