Idaho Governor sighs emergency legislation nullifying federal gun laws

[NYcarbineer]

It's a good start.

Next piece in the puzzle, will be a law that says no one is allowed to violate any part of the U.S. Constitution, within the borders of the state.

That includes Federal officers trying to enforce unconstitutional Federal legislation such as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, etc.

Anyone found trying to enforce these unconstitutional acts, will receive no more than two years in state prison and/or a fine in the following amounts.......

States don't have the power under the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

 

[Meister]

It's a good start.

Next piece in the puzzle, will be a law that says no one is allowed to violate any part of the U.S. Constitution, within the borders of the state.

That includes Federal officers trying to enforce unconstitutional Federal legislation such as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, etc.

Anyone found trying to enforce these unconstitutional acts, will receive no more than two years in state prison and/or a fine in the following amounts.......

States don't have the power under the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

Again, Wa. & Co.

 

[DriftingSand]

Go ahead and join the fed gov and try and enforce the law...Let us know how that goes for ya.

I think you're the one who ought to let us know. If federal agents show up to start enforcing these laws what do you think the state is going to do?

I can tell you what they SHOULD do. The men of Idaho are just as able and tough as any Fed. I think someone needs to send the Feds "hightailing" out of Idaho. We don't need their unconstitutional, King-George-style legislation.

 

[DriftingSand]

It's a good start.

Next piece in the puzzle, will be a law that says no one is allowed to violate any part of the U.S. Constitution, within the borders of the state.

That includes Federal officers trying to enforce unconstitutional Federal legislation such as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, etc.

Anyone found trying to enforce these unconstitutional acts, will receive no more than two years in state prison and/or a fine in the following amounts.......

States don't have the power under the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

Again, Wa. & Co.

Good point. As a Colorado resident I can tell you that the pot industry is flourishing and the Feds have done nothing to enforce their regulations (unless you're a professional driver regulated by the Federal DOT).

 

[Mustang]

Yeah, and?

The Constitution is supreme.

The state has no standing to "nullify" Federal laws on their own.

This was decided pretty dramatically in the Civil War.

Didn't you know? Conservatives LOVE the US Constitution and are strict constructionists...except when they don't like it when they can't summarily ignore any federal law they don't agree with. Then it becomes an issue of states' rights as far as they're concerned, up until the point that they don't like the laws of their state and they want the federal gov't to pass laws which essentially negate those state laws.

And no matter what else is true, don't forget one thing. Conservatives stand on principle. Of course, that's only true if the definition of 'standing on principle' is changed to mean supporting any argument that allows you to get your own way in the end.

like Democrats dont do the same thing.....

Would you care to provide an example?

 

[Meister]

Didn't you know? Conservatives LOVE the US Constitution and are strict constructionists...except when they don't like it when they can't summarily ignore any federal law they don't agree with. Then it becomes an issue of states' rights as far as they're concerned, up until the point that they don't like the laws of their state and they want the federal gov't to pass laws which essentially negate those state laws.

And no matter what else is true, don't forget one thing. Conservatives stand on principle. Of course, that's only true if the definition of 'standing on principle' is changed to mean supporting any argument that allows you to get your own way in the end.

like Democrats dont do the same thing.....

Would you care to provide an example?

Again, Wa. & Co.

 

[Little-Acorn]

states don't have the right to nullify fed laws

Read the Tenth Amendment.

Or better yet, have a third grader read it to you so they can explain it to you at the same time.

Yeah, and?

The Constitution is supreme.

Yes, it is. And it says that no government can make any law taking away or restricting any law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Any law hostile to that command, is automatically null and void, as the Supreme Court decided long ago.

So if Idaho state or local officials refuse to enforce any Federal law restricting people's guns, they are obeying and upholding the highest of Constitutional ideals, and should be given a medal, starting with this Idaho governor, and the people who wrote the bill he just signed... at the same time the Federal official trying to enforce that anti-gun law, should be given jail time.

 

[Mustang]

Read the Tenth Amendment.

Or better yet, have a third grader read it to you so they can explain it to you at the same time.

Yeah, and?

The Constitution is supreme.

Yes, it is. And it says that no government can make any law taking away or restricting any law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Any law hostile to that command, is automatically null and void, as the Supreme Court decided long ago.

So if Idaho state or local officials refuse to enforce any Federal law restricting people's guns, they are obeying and upholding the highest of Constitutional ideals, and should be given a medal, starting with this Idaho governor, and the people who wrote the bill he just signed... at the same time the Federal official trying to enforce that anti-gun law, should be given jail time.

That's not true. The gov't can and does pass laws restricting any citizen (except authorized LE) from keeping and bearing arms at certain times and at certain locations, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the gov't to do so. The gov't can and does restrict the ownership of certain kinds of weapons. The SC has affirmed that right as well.

 

[DriftingSand]

It's a good start.

Next piece in the puzzle, will be a law that says no one is allowed to violate any part of the U.S. Constitution, within the borders of the state.

That includes Federal officers trying to enforce unconstitutional Federal legislation such as the 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, etc.

Anyone found trying to enforce these unconstitutional acts, will receive no more than two years in state prison and/or a fine in the following amounts.......

States don't have the power under the Constitution to declare laws unconstitutional.

If a Federal law contradicts a State law then the State most certainly DOES get to decide if the a law is unconstitutional. The term is called "nullification."

Nullification (U.S. Constitution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly and rarely legally upheld by the Federal courts.[1]

"Rarely" upheld in federal court but "sometimes" upheld.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yeah, and?

The Constitution is supreme.

Yes, it is. And it says that no government can make any law taking away or restricting any law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Any law hostile to that command, is automatically null and void, as the Supreme Court decided long ago.

So if Idaho state or local officials refuse to enforce any Federal law restricting people's guns, they are obeying and upholding the highest of Constitutional ideals, and should be given a medal, starting with this Idaho governor, and the people who wrote the bill he just signed... at the same time the Federal official trying to enforce that anti-gun law, should be given jail time.

That's not true.

Which part? The part about what the 2nd amendment says? Or the part about what the Supreme Court said?

Both are true. Read them.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yeah, and?

The Constitution is supreme.

Yes, it is. And it says that no government can make any law taking away or restricting any law-abiding citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Any law hostile to that command, is automatically null and void, as the Supreme Court decided long ago.

So if Idaho state or local officials refuse to enforce any Federal law restricting people's guns, they are obeying and upholding the highest of Constitutional ideals, and should be given a medal, starting with this Idaho governor, and the people who wrote the bill he just signed... at the same time the Federal official trying to enforce that anti-gun law, should be given jail time.

That's not true.

Which part? The part about what the 2nd amendment says? Or the part about what the Supreme Court said?

Both are true. Read them.

The gov't can and does pass laws restricting any citizen (except authorized LE) from keeping and bearing arms at certain times and at certain locations,

How does the government violating the Constitution, change the truth of what I wrote?

and the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of the gov't to do so.

How does the Supreme Court contradicting what the 2nd amendment clearly says, make the 2nd amendment "not true"?

If the Supreme Court announced that slavery was now OK in this country, when the 13th amendment says it isn't, would that make slavery OK in this country?

No, of course not.

If the Supreme Court says it's now OK to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, when the 2nd amendment says it isn't, would that make it OK for govt to infringe the right to keep and bear arms?

No, of course not.

Do you understand now?

When Idaho says that no Idaho law enforcement people will support any federal effort to enforce laws that violate the 2nd amendment, Idaho is merely ordering its law enforcement to obey the law - specifically the 2nd amendment. And it has full authority to do that.

The only govt without authority to do what it's doing, is the Fed govt, in making laws that violate the 2nd amendment. And the Supreme Court declared such laws null and void a long time ago (McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Idaho Governor sighs emergency legislation nullifying federal gun laws

Ignorant nonsense.

According to the Idaho attorney general, ‘nullification’ is un-Constitutional:

Courts Have Expressly Rejected Nullification

Our history is replete with federal enactments that were unpopular in one State or
another, or even within regions. Taking the logic of the nullification theory to its natural
extension, federal law would become a patchwork of regulation depending upon which
States chose to comply. It is hardly surprising, given this specter, that no court has ever
upheld a State effort to nullify a federal law.

The most instructive case on nullification is likely Cooper v. Aaron. This case
arose out of a belief by the State of Arkansas that it was not bound to follow the Supreme
Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 9 Arkansas, through its governor and
legislature, claimed that there is no duty on the part of state official to obey federal court
orders based upon the Court's interpretation of the federal constitution. lO The governor
and the legislature, in practical effect, were advancing the theory that the States were the
ultimate arbiters of the constitutionality of federal enactments and decisions.

The Court expressly rejected this argument stating: "No state legislator or
executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his
undertaking to support it."ll The Court went further: A governor who asserts power to
nullify a federal court manifests that the fiat of a state governor, and not the Constitution
of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land.

http://www.ridenbaugh.com/docs/1101agnull.pdf

So the governor can sign whatever ‘nullification law’ he wants, as it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, and it will be invalidated by the Federal courts where Idaho will be subject to the same Federal gun laws as the other 49 states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Idaho Gov. Signs Emergency Legislation to Nullify Federal Gun Laws : Freedom Outpost

Good.

states don't have the right to nullify fed laws

Read the Tenth Amendment.

Or better yet, have a third grader read it to you so they can explain it to you at the same time.

Or even better yet, read the Idaho AG’s letter, then read Cooper v. Aaron, and then acknowledge that as a fact of Constitutional law states may not ‘nullify’ Federal laws or rulings by the Federal courts.

 

[freedombecki]

Idaho Gov. Signs Emergency Legislation to Nullify Federal Gun Laws : Freedom Outpost

Good.

states don't have the right to nullify fed laws

37 of them don't think that's true at all, Ms. matters.

In at least 37 states, legislation has been introduced that in some way would gut federal gun regulations, according to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The bills were signed into law this spring in two states, Kansas and Alaska, and in two others lawmakers hope to override gubernatorial vetoes. Twenty states since 2010 have passed laws that either opt out of or challenge mandatory parts of Obamacare, the National Conference of State Legislatures says. And half the states have approved measures aimed knocking back the Real ID Act of 2005, which dictates Washington’s requirements for issuing driver’s licenses.
“Rosa Parks is the beacon of light: If you say no to something, you can change the world,” Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, which favors states’ rights, told POLITICO.
Read more: States seek to nullify Obama efforts - POLITICO.com

Trying to nullify Amendment 2 is a serious error on the part of the fed. When the American citizens are done, the Second Amendment will not only stand, it will be strengthened.

Amendment X also gives states distinctive powers:

Amendment X
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.
Archives.gov

The best thing Democrats can do is to strengthen the preventative lowering of mentally-ill and maladjusted persons who commit mass murders, not to take away the guns of free men who need to protect their families from poisonous snakes and criminally armed prowlers and mental cases, without destroying the rights of people who use firepower only in the event of self-defense in a life-threatening situation in which , for example, the attacker in a recent case said to the acquitted man he was attacking, "I am going to kill you," while attempting to crack his skull open on concrete, breaking his nose, and choking him.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Didn't you know? Conservatives LOVE the US Constitution and are strict constructionists...except when they don't like it when they can't summarily ignore any federal law they don't agree with. Then it becomes an issue of states' rights as far as they're concerned, up until the point that they don't like the laws of their state and they want the federal gov't to pass laws which essentially negate those state laws.

And no matter what else is true, don't forget one thing. Conservatives stand on principle. Of course, that's only true if the definition of 'standing on principle' is changed to mean supporting any argument that allows you to get your own way in the end.

like Democrats dont do the same thing.....

Would you care to provide an example?

you mean like the example you showed?.....

 

[Moonglow]

Idaho Governor sighs emergency legislation nullifying federal gun laws

Deeply and regrettably, I am sure....

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL. Oh well, when the posturing is all done, the federal laws will be enforced, and nobody will give a damn.

Go ahead and join the fed gov and try and enforce the law...Let us know how that goes for ya.

I think you're the one who ought to let us know. If federal agents show up to start enforcing these laws what do you think the state is going to do?

Um They won't as you 2 have already been shown at least 2 states did what they wanted with marijuana legislation and legalization. You lose.

Only because the federal Justice Department has CHOSEN not to contest them.

Where are all of those from the crowd that attacks the Justice Department for selectively enforcing the law?

Flip flop time, AGAIN.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Their job is to enforce ALL federal laws. So if THEY can choose which to follow then so can we.

 

[Meister]

LOL. Oh well, when the posturing is all done, the federal laws will be enforced, and nobody will give a damn.

I think you're the one who ought to let us know. If federal agents show up to start enforcing these laws what do you think the state is going to do?

Um They won't as you 2 have already been shown at least 2 states did what they wanted with marijuana legislation and legalization. You lose.

Only because the federal Justice Department has CHOSEN not to contest them.

Where are all of those from the crowd that attacks the Justice Department for selectively enforcing the law?

Flip flop time, AGAIN.

deflection on your behalf
laws are laws.....right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Go ahead and join the fed gov and try and enforce the law...Let us know how that goes for ya.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six of the United States Constitution, Clause 2, that establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

One more example of the far right defending the Constitution when it sees fit, and ignoring the Constitution for political expedience!