Posted on 01/27/2015 9:41:13 AM PST by rktman
Two bills filed in the Mississippi House and Senate would make it an express duty of the state government to protect the gun rights of Mississippians against federal gun control measures.
House Bill 1297 (HB1297) was filed by Rep. Staples last week. It declares “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the Second Amendment.”
In other words, as the Founders understood, the federal government has no authority over firearms, period.
The bill goes on to declare that all such federal acts are “invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
It continues with a requirement to stop federal gun control in the state:
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
The question remains is this: Will the state of Mississippi come to the legal defense of it’s citizens when they violate a federal gun law?
That would seem to indicate that the feds would be conducting arrests inside the sovereign state of MS and any county sheriff can run them off since he is the TOP LEO in the county. Unless of course the state has ceded that level of authority. Since the fed laws would be invalid in MS, the case could be made for false arrest.
No...the question is: Will Mississippi ban the ATF from its state? Anything but that is effectively meaningless!
Left wing lunatics from the White House on down would have apoplectic fits should this bill become law. Heads would be exploding nationwide. It would be fun to watch. Wonder where the rest of the legislature and Governor stand on this.
Now we need someone with a CNC machine and alot of 80% receivers to manufacture MS-only machine guns and hope their is enough money behind the inevitable ATF killing, confiscation, and litigation.
Feds will just say the ATF is necessary to protect minority voting rights in the state, and the 15th amendment supercedes state law.
Not morally right - but I guarantee that’s what would happen.
The first time MS really makes any sort of meaningful moves to enforce (or not enforce) fed laws of this nature, the feds will pull back highway, food stamp and medicaid monies...
MS will then fold like a cheap suit.
This is so much kabuki. And they know it.
So here's an interesting thing about that: since CO and WA have legalized marijuana, the number of federal prosecutions in the state have gone down. The Federal government has deliberately cast a blind eye to marijuana laws. This, I believe, sets a precedent that would lead to one hell of a SCOTUS showdown if the feds ever tried to go after a MS gun owner if/when this law passes.
This is very brave of MS and a shot across the bow of the federal government leviathan. If we can get more states to follow suit, I believe we'll have a "mandate" to get the feds out of gun ownership altogether, which would set the media ablaze in apoplexia.
Remember, the Second Amendment is an enshrined RIGHT. It is not transferrable, non-revocable, not debatable. It is clearly a right that we enjoy and that "shall not be infringed." If the feds go after MS for passing a law that directly addresses and affirms an article in the Bill of Rights while casting a blind eye to a federal regulation on the sale and possession of a schedule I drug, I believe it would be the arena of SCOTUS to finally say what the 2A means. If the feds can attack a right in the BoR, what can't they attack?
If this stands, I know where I’m headed. Seriously.
MS will then fold like a cheap suit.
-------------------------------------------------
Then forbid employers in the state from collecting federal income taxes, and outlaw any IRS agents from attempting to collect taxes.
Well, the last time MS stood up to the fed gov it didn’t turn out very well for MS.
Just sayin’.
Actually Mississippi hasn’t “declared” anything. This is merely a bill that is still in committee. After reading the headline I was about to rush down to the gun shop and pick up a few full auto HK MP5s, a few suppressors and a couple 12” witness protection style shotguns BUT it appears from the wording of the bill that Mississippi WILL in fact tolerate federal gun control laws with respect to the aforementioned items. Once you show a willingness to compromise your rights any action from that point forward is generally a net loss of rights. Essentially the State is saying, “look we’ll live with your current infringements but no new ones.” It’s still better than nothing but it’s FAR from telling FedGov to shove its gun control laws.
Yeah, the title was misleading to say the least. I remember there being a shop in Picayune that was a Class III dealer.
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense [sic] of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people [emphass added]. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. — Amendment II: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890–91
Consider that the Founding States probably would have liked to include the intent of the 2nd Amendment in the 1st Amendment’s list of powers prohibited to the federal government, prohibiting federal control of arms. The problem is that the Founders had delegated to the feds the power to raise and support armies as evidenced by the Constitution’s Clause 12 of Section 8 of Article I. So the Founders couldn’t prohibit the feds the power to regulate arms altogether.
So the question is, where did federal arms regulations for civilians come from since there is no clear delegation of such power to the feds in the Constitution? It is disturbing to note that federal arms regulations seem to have started appearing in the books when Constitution-ignoring FDR was president.
Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control
If you two haven’t read the following book then I suggest you buy it as you’ll both enjoy it!
http://www.amazon.com/A-State-Disobedience-Tom-Kratman/dp/0743499204
Refreshing to see laws that limit government, instead of limiting citizens
placemarker
MS ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.