Posted: 2/7/2013 8:15:21 AM EDT
|
Not sure if already posted:
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/ So glad to be from a place where the majority of people seem to be capable of rational thought. |
|
Quoted: Not sure if already posted: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/ So glad to be from a place where the majority of people seem to be capable of rational thought. It (the bill) sounds good and meets the "red meat" requirement for most gun owners. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has already ruled on these types of "nullification" laws and found most of them unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause (supersedes conflicting state laws) is the "law of the land", BUT that presumes that any federal law passed is within congress' enumerated powers. Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. Sadly, this means the morons could pass another gun ban that would receive approval from our clueless Supreme Court. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if already posted: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/ So glad to be from a place where the majority of people seem to be capable of rational thought. It (the bill) sounds good and meets the "red meat" requirement for most gun owners. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has already ruled on these types of "nullification" laws and found most of them unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause (supersedes conflicting state laws) is the "law of the land", BUT that presumes that any federal law passed is within congress' enumerated powers. Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. Sadly, this means the morons could pass another gun ban that would receive approval from our clueless Supreme Court. It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court ruled, the federal supremacy clause is only supreme in regards to powers delegated to them, everything else is let to the states. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if already posted: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/ So glad to be from a place where the majority of people seem to be capable of rational thought. It (the bill) sounds good and meets the "red meat" requirement for most gun owners. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has already ruled on these types of "nullification" laws and found most of them unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause (supersedes conflicting state laws) is the "law of the land", BUT that presumes that any federal law passed is within congress' enumerated powers. Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. Sadly, this means the morons could pass another gun ban that would receive approval from our clueless Supreme Court. STFU NOOB!! 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if already posted: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/01/2nd-amendment-preservation-act-introduced-in-oklahoma/ So glad to be from a place where the majority of people seem to be capable of rational thought. It (the bill) sounds good and meets the "red meat" requirement for most gun owners. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has already ruled on these types of "nullification" laws and found most of them unconstitutional. The Supremacy Clause (supersedes conflicting state laws) is the "law of the land", BUT that presumes that any federal law passed is within congress' enumerated powers. Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action. Sadly, this means the morons could pass another gun ban that would receive approval from our clueless Supreme Court. You know what really makes me laugh lately? It's all these people (not just you, there are others even here on arfcom) that like to trot out the supremacy clause on these sorts of legal technical issues and such. Here's the thing...we seem to be getting ever closer to the point that the states just don't fucking care anymore. Does that make enough sense to you folks? We can sit around and argue all sorts of legal technicalities until we're blue in the face, but states are doing this stuff because the federal government has proven to have acted in such bad faith that this sort of shit is necessary these days. The very fact that a bill is introduced to "protect" the 2nd amendment should clearly demonstrate just how fucking far we've gone over the cliff. |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.