Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,286
- 2,320
- Thread starter
- #41
"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control
- Thread starter Billy_Kinetta
- Start date
"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye."
Crepitus
Diamond Member
- Mar 28, 2018
- 105,810
- 156,592
- 3,615
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,337
- 14,061
- 2,400
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?
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,286
- 2,320
- Thread starter
- #44
Your opinion is noted, and dispensed with.
- Mar 3, 2013
- 89,506
- 53,910
- 2,605
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
- May 20, 2009
- 161,265
- 87,736
- 2,645
Xi has Biden trying to start a Civil War. This way he can defeat the USA by unleashing the bioweapons and his control of the DNC - all the while our military sides idly by and let's it happen
Its a start and blueprint for others to ensure such laws never exist.
Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 16,337
- 14,061
- 2,400
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
Me too, mine shoots water.
Concerned American
Diamond Member
You clearly haven't listened to your alzheimer's patient or Beto. Actions like this will make sure they don't.
Ringtone
Platinum Member
- Sep 3, 2019
- 6,142
- 3,537
- 940
No, no, you're "circle-jerking" around what you know to be true . . . but pretending not to understand.
Thanks.
AZrailwhale
Diamond Member
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
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 34,233
- 27,877
- 2,820
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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
www.law.cornell.edu
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,286
- 2,320
- Thread starter
- #54
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
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 34,233
- 27,877
- 2,820
Several states passed similar laws under then-president Barack Obama, although judges have ruled against them in court.
GOP state lawmakers seek to nullify federal gun limits - KTAR.com
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- With Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress, Republican state lawmakers concerned about the possibility of new federal
ktar.com
berg80
Diamond Member
- Oct 28, 2017
- 34,233
- 27,877
- 2,820
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.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
www.law.cornell.edu
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,286
- 2,320
- Thread starter
- #57
Several states passed similar laws under then-president Barack Obama, although judges have ruled against them in court.
GOP state lawmakers seek to nullify federal gun limits - KTAR.com
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- With Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress, Republican state lawmakers concerned about the possibility of new federalktar.com
Non-compliance will negate any arbitrary judgment.
9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,114
- 325
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
- Banned
- #59
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
- Banned
- #60
Yes, I would.Would you have a problem if say half of New Mexico and half of Arizona formed a new state?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.
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.
McDonald v. City of Chicago | Summary, Decision, History, & Facts | Britannica
McDonald v. City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that 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.www.britannica.com
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.
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;
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.
