Growing Number Of States Eye Bills To Defy Federal Gun Laws

CNS News ^ | 3/16/13 | Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

[Nachum]

Shortly after voters in Colorado and Washington State approved measures that legalized the recreational use of marijuana, President Obama told Barbara Walters that his Justice Department would not prosecute pot users in these states.

"We've got bigger fish to fry," Obama said.

Although the state measures defy federal law, it appears Barack Obama is giving each state a pass on this issue.

[SandRat]

Ping

[bigheadfred]

"We've got bigger fish to fry," Obama said."

[bravo whiskey]

watch him change his position when states start ignoring fascist ferealai gun restrictions. bet jugears won’t think they deserve a pass.
commierado less guns more pot conto;ing the sheep by any means.

[Monorprise]

Its time to tell Washington to go to hell!

We will not surrender our last and most important right.

We shall in theses acts of Constitutional resolve & defiance asimble among the patriots of our land our army of liberty...

The torch of freedom shall be lit in the heart of men and women across this land!

Even thou it may have to shine in their basements for a while that light will nonetheless shine thou the cracks to illuminate the path forward even in theses darkest of time...

Let the resistance grown and be retained in the harts of the Good men & women across this country! Let our State legislators declare, authorized and encourage our defiance against theses lawless acts of Washington.

Our very public State legislators may in due time fall to this Leviathan of evil but we shall nonetheless look back to them to fuel our resistance in the still darker years yet to come.

[Road Glide]

Several nights ago, I woke with a vision. I took off the tin foil sleeping cap I normally wear, and started thinking.

Most here know that back before the [first] Civil War, there was passed something called the “Fugitive Slave Act” that could be used to force the return of slaves from the “free states” to the “slave states”.

And in 1857, there was a famous Supreme Court case — the Dred Scott decision, in which Scott, a fugitive slave, was declared to have no rights under the Constitution [at least equal to those afforded to ordinary free citizens], and was to be returned to his owner.

We know how the Dred Scott decision became one of the final “fuses” that triggered secession and what followed.

Told you that to tell you this:

Just as we saw the nation “divide” once before, we are again seeing a new “great divide” __ with one of the most important issues being the Second Amendment. We are seeing some states — the blue, “new-slave” states — rush to abrogate the Second Amendment rights of those within. Most recent examples are New York and now Colorado. In at least some states, what was previously legal will become quite illegal. Perhaps some states will creep towards confiscation, certainly registration (in the sense that all AR-15 owners in NY state will now be required to either register or turn in their weapons).

On the other hand, we have “the free states” — the red states in which gun ownership (along with other traditional values) remain revered and protected. We’re even seeing moves in some states that would seek to nullify any new federal laws that attack the Second Amendment — which is what the original article about is all about.

At some point, we’re going to see an accused gun-law violater in a “new-slave” state flee across state lines into a “free state”, perhaps after an arrest and release on bail. That this will eventually happen is almost a certainty.

What will the “free state” law officials do then? Will they return the “fugitive gun owner”? Or, will they take him in and protect him, as they would do with their own citizens, perhaps offer him “sanctuary” against the unconstitutional laws of the “new slave” state that is trying to persecute him?

I foresee at least one or two legal challenges here.

But let me continue further:
If the Republicans lose the House in 2014, giving the democrats full control of the federal government, and if we continue to see fugitive gun owners crossing state lines to escape prosecution and persecution in the new-slave states, I expect that there will be a move in Congress to pass something called a “Fugitive Gun Owner Act”. This will mandate that the free states return all “fugitive gun owners” to their states of origin, so that they may be prosecuted under their home-state’s laws.

When this happens, I expect to see at least one fugitive gun owner raise a constitutional challenge — just as Dred Scott did back in 1857.

And I predict that the decision the Supreme Court hands down will become as monumental in our century, as was the Scott decision in his.

Perhaps I should put my tin foil hat back on, and go back to sleep...

[exit82]

Years ago I would have laughed you to scorn.

Now, your vision makes a lot of sense.

We are entering dangerous territory for our Republic.

We better all find our voices—SOON—or they will be silenced.

[Gunslingr3]

Article. VI.

Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

~

Heller upheld the federal ban on automatic weapons, didn’t it?
We have 4 justices that are over 74 years old. Going to be interested to see how many retire during Obama’s term.

[privatedrive]

Hi - I am a supporter of the second amendment. Not a gun owner (but think about buying one).

My question is this - and I hope someone can help me:

Do staunch defenders of the second amendment believe there should be any limits to the right to bear arms? I mean, to take it to an absurd level, should individuals be allowed to own a nuclear bomb? And if the answer is no, then isn’t it just a question of where to draw the line?

Thanks Freeps - your thoughts appreciated.

[MrB]

This has already been discussed, and though I don’t lump you in with the left, they use the “nuclear bomb” and “bazooka” argument to justify banning semi-automatic firearms.

The key word is “arms”. “Destructive devices” like NBC weapons are not “arms”.

Basically “the line” is set by the military.
Whatever weapons the common infantryman uses should be available to the citizen.

[going hot]

Difficult to control the radius of a nucler blast, and fallout is at the whim of air currents.

Now, if we had interstellar capability, then I coud see arming the boat with a couple.

In terra firma, anything conventional is ok by me, provied one has enough property to cover the maximum trajectory of the projectile or fragments to keep them off neighbor's land.

[going hot]

Oh, and the noise. Gots to be nice, no shooting 155’s after 9 pm, stuff like that.

[privatedrive]

Thanks - perfect answer.

[motor_racer]

I think that states passing laws like this represents an unfortunate trend and a weakening of the constitutional authority (I won’t say “rights”) of the states.

It isn’t necessary for states to pass laws to “defy federal gun laws”.

The Executive departments of the states should simply assert their refusal to abide by federal law passed without constitutional authority, and refuse to permit their enforcement by federal agents within the states’ borders. No new law is necessary to enforce the existing law.