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

[ThisIsMe]

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.

I'm not sure on this, but, I don't think the supremacy clause means what you say it does.

There are constitutional powers delegated to congress in the 18 enumerated powers, and in THOSE constitutionally delegated powers, federal law is Supreme, but I don't think this act is meant to imply that federal law supercedes all state law.

If the supremacy clause overrode all other laws, then the inclusion of the 18 powers would have been pointless. It would also mean that the federal government could exert dictatorial powers over the entire nation should one party manage to wrestle power and find a way to keep it.

Thoughts?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
- 10th Amendment

Exactly, so, the supremacy clause would seem to have a conflict with this.

 

[danielpalos]

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)

Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.

I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

"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

And all right wingers have is the US Constitution, clear USSC rulings and our own State Constitutions which may not read remotely like yours. I know mine doesn't and does in fact support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Why should anyone care what your State Constitution says especially since it has long been established rights granted by the US Constitution are NOT subject to infringement by State law or Federal law? It has been ruled that some reasonable local regulation is not counted as infringement but exactly where that line is drawn has yet to be determined.

All right wingers have is fallacy and fallacious understanding of what Constitutional laws says.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--The Federalist Number Forty-Five

 

[danielpalos]

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

What's funny is you apparently don't understand English well enough to realize that the quote you posted contradicts your own argument, and supports the Supreme Court's holding in Heller. Look, I've got nothing against you dp. You seem nice enough and I'm usually entertained by your posts. But it's obvious that English is not your primary language, and that fact reveals itself quite patently every time you start trying to do an analysis of the language of the Constitution (which was written in the passive voice, making it hard enough for a native english-speaker to understand without significant study).

What is more obvious is that you have nothing but fallacy and understand English even less than I do. But hey, I have got nothing against you; your fallacies along with those of all of the other right wingers are even more droll. English must not be Your primary language since you have only fallacy instead of any valid arguments for rebuttals.

And, you have to show how what I posted contradicts my own argument not merely claim it and believe you are Right simply because you are on the right wing. You obviously don't understand English well enough to have any valid arguments.