More Than A Dozen States Are Trying To Nullify Federal Gun Control

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives.
Anthony needs to stop being an ignorant ass and read the Constitution.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

You’re misreading not withstanding. That actually means a federal law can’t go against the Constitution.
and state laws cant go against it either,,,

I tend to agree, but the strict prohibition against federal gun laws of the 2nd amendment does not so explicitly deny state or local firearm restrictions like it does federal.
nothing strictly for the feds about it,, it doesnt say just the feds,,

try that with any other amendments,, can a state change the 5th and execute without a trial or due process???

he clearly says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED I see nothing that says states or local can infringe or any other caveat,,,

I based my view not from my own attempts to read and understand the Constitution, but from reading history books that try to condense, interpret, explain, etc.
Here is an example of that:

{...

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787),[1] the English Bill of Rights (1689), and the Magna Carta (1215).[2]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[3] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.

Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[4]

...}
 
All this teenage angst by little boys with big popguns and tiny pee-pees having a hissy-fit over nothing... :laugh:
All this democrat angst over little boys with popguns and tiny pee-pees. Don't you have anything better to do?

I know, I know, the tiny pee-pees drew you right in, right? You just couldn't resist?!? ;)
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.

Ah, so any day now I can have that rocket launcher?


Think about it for a second.
For the military to have a rocket launcher, since the military does not design or built them, some civilian had to, and that means civilian have to possess all the weapons you want them to create for the military.
 
"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives.
Anthony needs to stop being an ignorant ass and read the Constitution.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

You’re misreading not withstanding. That actually means a federal law can’t go against the Constitution.
and state laws cant go against it either,,,

I tend to agree, but the strict prohibition against federal gun laws of the 2nd amendment does not so explicitly deny state or local firearm restrictions like it does federal.
nothing strictly for the feds about it,, it doesnt say just the feds,,

try that with any other amendments,, can a state change the 5th and execute without a trial or due process???

he clearly says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED I see nothing that says states or local can infringe or any other caveat,,,

I based my view not from my own attempts to read and understand the Constitution, but from reading history books that try to condense, interpret, explain, etc.
Here is an example of that:

{...

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787),[1] the English Bill of Rights (1689), and the Magna Carta (1215).[2]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[3] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.

Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[4]

...}


its easier to just read the text and understand the reason behind it,,

it was clear they wanted the people as equally armed as any who would try and oppress them including our own government,,

if all 50 states banned guns completely the 2nd is just a good idea,,
 
"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives.
Anthony needs to stop being an ignorant ass and read the Constitution.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

Hey, it's not a problem. Congress can pass any law Biden will sign BUT the Feds will be totally responsible for enforcement. NO STATE will have an obligation to enforce an unconstitutional law or edict -JUST LIKE the Left did with Federal immigration rulings. I see no problem with this ;)
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.

Ah, so any day now I can have that rocket launcher?

You got the money?

Cash crypto or krugerrands.
 
"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives.
Anthony needs to stop being an ignorant ass and read the Constitution.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

Constitution of United States of America 1789

Amendment II
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.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

wrong again commie,,
it exist in its wording and nothing but a direct repeal can change what it says,,


youre thinking of what fascist or communist countrys do,,,
lol

Then dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.


fuck scalia,,

I will stick with original intent and the letter of the law,,,

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

Amendment II
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.
The states will follow Federal firearm regulatory measures.

If the states believe a given measure is un-Constitutional, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court.

And if the Supreme Court rules that a given firearm regulatory measure is Constitutional, the states will continue to follow that law, regardless the states’ opinion.
And if the states REFUSE to enforce it?
 
"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives.
Anthony needs to stop being an ignorant ass and read the Constitution.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Cont.

You’re misreading not withstanding. That actually means a federal law can’t go against the Constitution.
and state laws cant go against it either,,,

I tend to agree, but the strict prohibition against federal gun laws of the 2nd amendment does not so explicitly deny state or local firearm restrictions like it does federal.
nothing strictly for the feds about it,, it doesnt say just the feds,,

try that with any other amendments,, can a state change the 5th and execute without a trial or due process???

he clearly says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED I see nothing that says states or local can infringe or any other caveat,,,

I based my view not from my own attempts to read and understand the Constitution, but from reading history books that try to condense, interpret, explain, etc.
Here is an example of that:

{...

The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787),[1] the English Bill of Rights (1689), and the Magna Carta (1215).[2]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the Constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[3] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.

Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[4]

...}


its easier to just read the text and understand the reason behind it,,

it was clear they wanted the people as equally armed as any who would try and oppress them including our own government,,

if all 50 states banned guns completely the 2nd is just a good idea,,

I do not disagree in theory, but you still have to remember the founders were not Anarchists but instead were strongly tied to states as sovereign entities. They were state employees in most cases, and their income was tied to the state they represented. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to get states to sign on to the federation. The Constitution and Bill of Rights had nothing to do with creating the states, as they already existed. So there was no motivation for anyone to restrict states from infringing upon individual rights in a federation the states were considering opting out of.
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.

This is more legal than merely grandstanding:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.

This is more legal than merely grandstanding:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


The individual right of self defense and defense of one's home is of the highest priority of all, well beyond the defense and protection of the state or country.
Any level of government that infringes upon those individual rights is null and void legally.
Governments have no justification for existing unless they enhance or defend individual rights.
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.

More than a dozen states are wrong; they’re being ridiculous and idiotic.

Or not. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

Wrong.

See post #10.

I did. It sucked, as dirty Libs only quote the Constitution when it suits their Commie agenda.
 
A jabbering retard said:
Something freakishly stupid as usual
How the fuck do you even come up with such a stupid comparison?

He didn't "come up" with anything. He is repeating some inane shit just like the vacuous parrot he is. Many of the posters on this forum that waste time even reading leftist psychobabble need to understand that you're not exchanging ideas or even arguing with a cognizant individual. As far as I'm concerned these sniveling malignant turds are nothing more than posting bots. Bed wetters like C_Clayton_Jones are not even worth acknowledging.

You're not going to "change their minds", or whatever sphincter functions as one for them. If everyone simply ignored them, they would go away.

.


.
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.


Why do Republicans insist on shoving policy down the throats of the American people, that the people DO NOT WANT?

80% of the American people want sensible gun laws, background checks, and a ban on AR-style large magazine weapons. As the death toll rises every year, more and more Americans are demanding these things, and as always, Republicans are pandering to the NRA. Why?

The NRA are bankrupt, their leadership having stolen all of their money, just like Trump is demanding all Republican donations go to him and not the RNC. They've got nothing left to offer you.
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.


Why do Republicans insist on shoving policy down the throats of the American people, that the people DO NOT WANT?

80% of the American people want sensible gun laws, background checks, and a ban on AR-style large magazine weapons. As the death toll rises every year, more and more Americans are demanding these things, and as always, Republicans are pandering to the NRA. Why?

The NRA are bankrupt, their leadership having stolen all of their money, just like Trump is demanding all Republican donations go to him and not the RNC. They've got nothing left to offer you.

I'm a liberal. I'm not a Republican. I'm not even a Democrat. I can see that you are confused. B**** just kicked out another round of executive orders as a knee jerk reaction. Let that sink in.
 
With President Joe Biden issuing a flurry of executive actions last week to strengthen federal gun laws, state representatives across the country are working in the opposite direction, taking a page from the playbook of immigration activists by advancing legislation that would make their enforcement illegal. On April 6, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed the first gun control nullification bill into law.

"Nullifying unconstitutional, federal laws is both legal and it's also the right thing to do," says Anthony Sabatini, a Republican lawmaker and member of the Florida House of Representatives. "It's silly to sit around and wait for something you know is unconstitutional," he tells Reason. "It's time to stand up and fight back. And the methods that we need to use are the ones already being used by the left."

In 1987, Oregon passed a law prohibiting state and local law enforcement from using public resources to arrest or detain people whose only crime was being in the country illegally. Since then, hundreds of other jurisdictions have passed similar laws, becoming so-called sanctuary cities.



Good. I hope they are able to do this. If it is perfectly acceptable for the Left to do than this is funtastically perfect for the rest of the world.

Ah, so any day now I can have that rocket launcher?


Have you found one you liked?

Oh hell yes, I'll take a TOW II.


You live on 45 acres what's stopping you?
 

Forum List

Back
Top