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?
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.
If this stands, I know where I’m headed. Seriously.
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.
§ 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
Refreshing to see laws that limit government, instead of limiting citizens
placemarker
MS ping