Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control

OP
Billy_Kinetta

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
51,815
Reaction score
20,452
Points
2,280

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
8,646
Reaction score
6,136
Points
2,050
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
The one rattling around between his ears that he has all but sworn to enact.
Come on Billy, why can't you answer the reasonable question?
No reasonable question has been asked. Biden & Co. have a long history from which to draw. You might avail yourself of it.

Or not.
Well gee YOU wrote this title of the thread:

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control

But when asked about WHAT "Biden's Federal Gun Control" is you duck answering it.

Again please answer the reasonable question:

What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
See # 31. That's my answer.
Then you have no answer.

Did you forget that Biden been President only 46 days?

What Gun control bill or EO has he signed in the last 46 days?
 
OP
Billy_Kinetta

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
51,815
Reaction score
20,452
Points
2,280
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
The one rattling around between his ears that he has all but sworn to enact.
Come on Billy, why can't you answer the reasonable question?
No reasonable question has been asked. Biden & Co. have a long history from which to draw. You might avail yourself of it.

Or not.
Well gee YOU wrote this title of the thread:

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control

But when asked about WHAT "Biden's Federal Gun Control" is you duck answering it.

Again please answer the reasonable question:

What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
See # 31. That's my answer.
Then you have no answer.

Did you forget that Biden been President only 46 days?

What Gun control bill or EO has he signed in the last 46 days?
Your opinion is noted, and dispensed with.
 

WillHaftawaite

Diamond Member
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
64,388
Reaction score
22,562
Points
2,250
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
The one rattling around between his ears that he has all but sworn to enact.
Come on Billy, why can't you answer the reasonable question?
No reasonable question has been asked. Biden & Co. have a long history from which to draw. You might avail yourself of it.

Or not.
Well gee YOU wrote this title of the thread:

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control

But when asked about WHAT "Biden's Federal Gun Control" is you duck answering it.

Again please answer the reasonable question:

What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
See # 31. That's my answer.
Then you have no answer.

Did you forget that Biden been President only 46 days?

What Gun control bill or EO has he signed in the last 46 days?
If you seriously believe he's not interested in passing some, as soon as he can,...


biden on gun control - Yahoo Video Search Results

But, til he does, just ignore what he has said, and what he ran on.
 

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
119,834
Reaction score
34,496
Points
2,220

Rogue AI

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
987
Reaction score
1,163
Points
883
Location
Wisconsin
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
lol

There is no "Biden Federal gun control," nor will there be.

It's a law in search of an issue that doesn't exist.
Its a start and blueprint for others to ensure such laws never exist.
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
8,646
Reaction score
6,136
Points
2,050
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
The one rattling around between his ears that he has all but sworn to enact.
Come on Billy, why can't you answer the reasonable question?
No reasonable question has been asked. Biden & Co. have a long history from which to draw. You might avail yourself of it.

Or not.
Well gee YOU wrote this title of the thread:

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control

But when asked about WHAT "Biden's Federal Gun Control" is you duck answering it.

Again please answer the reasonable question:

What is the Biden federal gun control you're referring to?
See # 31. That's my answer.
Then you have no answer.

Did you forget that Biden been President only 46 days?

What Gun control bill or EO has he signed in the last 46 days?
If you seriously believe he's not interested in passing some, as soon as he can,...


biden on gun control - Yahoo Video Search Results

But, til he does, just ignore what he has said, and what he ran on.
I am aware of his gun control PLANS, but the TITLE of this thread made a misleading claim since his plans have yet to be made into law:

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control

Therefore Arizona by a miracle is nullifying non existent Biden's gun control laws.
 

Concerned American

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
4,559
Reaction score
4,753
Points
1,893
Location
In your head
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
lol

There is no "Biden Federal gun control," nor will there be.

It's a law in search of an issue that doesn't exist.
You clearly haven't listened to your alzheimer's patient or Beto. Actions like this will make sure they don't.
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
1,100
Reaction score
1,138
Points
1,918
Location
Arizona
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.

The supremacy of Federal laws is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Residents of the states and state and local lawmakers will obey and comply with all Federal laws – including Federal firearm regulatory measures.

If the residents of Arizona believe a given firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek to have that law overturned.
The democrats have already set precedents for state and local laws overriding federal ones with their immigration sanctuary laws. Now Arizona can become a haven for the gun industry like Connecticut has for the banking industry because it removed it's usury laws allowing credit card companies and banks to charge whatever interest the market will bear.
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
6,192
Reaction score
3,500
Points
970
Wow. You are very misinformed about the Second Amendment. I don't know what the gun rights are in your country, but if you want to have an informed discussion about gun rights in the U.S., you should read up on the following SCOTUS decisions that are super precedent on this issue. Spoiler alert: both prongs of your post are incorrect.
The Roberts' court has shown no restraint in overturning established precedent. I imagine the same could be true of a court with a majority of liberals. After all Heller was a 5-4 decision with the far superior legal argument made in Breyer's dissent.

 
OP
Billy_Kinetta

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
51,815
Reaction score
20,452
Points
2,280
Wow. You are very misinformed about the Second Amendment. I don't know what the gun rights are in your country, but if you want to have an informed discussion about gun rights in the U.S., you should read up on the following SCOTUS decisions that are super precedent on this issue. Spoiler alert: both prongs of your post are incorrect.
The Roberts' court has shown no restraint in overturning established precedent. I imagine the same could be true of a court with a majority of liberals. After all Heller was a 5-4 decision with the far superior legal argument made in Breyer's dissent.

All Heller did was reiterate what was common knowledge among the educated ever since the document was signed.

Even the Democrats know this, but being totalitarian now by nature, they don't care.
 

berg80

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Messages
6,192
Reaction score
3,500
Points
970
Wow. You are very misinformed about the Second Amendment. I don't know what the gun rights are in your country, but if you want to have an informed discussion about gun rights in the U.S., you should read up on the following SCOTUS decisions that are super precedent on this issue. Spoiler alert: both prongs of your post are incorrect.
The Roberts' court has shown no restraint in overturning established precedent. I imagine the same could be true of a court with a majority of liberals. After all Heller was a 5-4 decision with the far superior legal argument made in Breyer's dissent.

All Heller did was reiterate what was common knowledge among the educated ever since the document was signed.

Even the Democrats know this, but being totalitarian now by nature, they don't care.
Incorrect.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

 
OP
Billy_Kinetta

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
51,815
Reaction score
20,452
Points
2,280

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,072
Reaction score
2,405
Points
325
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error.
It was not, nor was it a "new" ruling. It merely reiterated what was common knowledge until the mid-20th Century, when the Constitution came under express attack by the "Progressives" of the time, and the education system was primed to portray that then-current thinking as the same as that of the past.
Maybe in right wing fantasy.

This was common knowledge regarding the common law for the common defense:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Wow. You are very misinformed about the Second Amendment. I don't know what the gun rights are in your country, but if you want to have an informed discussion about gun rights in the U.S., you should read up on the following SCOTUS decisions that are super precedent on this issue. Spoiler alert: both prongs of your post are incorrect.


Held: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.


Held: the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.
Not at all. You are even more misinformed in your country since in my country we have a Constitution that is express not implied by right wing fantasy in any way. In fact, if you have to Imply instead of Express, you are already resorting to fallacy to begin with. We have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Simply appealing to authority is a fallacy. You have to explain why the Supreme Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means in those rulings.

And, the People are the Militia. There is no such thing as well regulated militia of Individuals of the People. Well regulated militia must be organized by the several States according to regulations prescribed by Congress.

Article 1, Section 8: Congress shall have Power: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Would you have a problem if say half of New Mexico and half of Arizona formed a new state?
Yes, I would.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top