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

[Cecilie1200]

Every fed needs local support.
The feds don't have any street operators to speak of, they all need local liaisons, that's what all these "Task Forces" are about. The feds funnel money to the local LE departments through funding for the TFs, and basically buy local LE cooperation through money for OT and equipment.

Shut off that money supply and the the feds are dead in the water. They can't even find a decent take-out place by themselves, let alone find the local players.

I believe that's the idea: state and local forces just stand around with their hands in their pockets, watching the feds try to singlehandedly enforce Biden's edicts and smirking. Maybe whistling a jaunty tune.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

Why do Canadians insist on shoving their fucking opinions down the throats of people in a country that ISN'T THEIRS and that COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT?

If you ever come up with a good reason why you should be saying anything on this subject, let alone why anyone should pay attention to it, then MAYBE we'll consider GENEROUSLY gifting you with our mindset on how we wish to run OUR country, which is not yours and which we in no way wish to make more attractive to foreign dregs like you.

I hope this will finally clarify for you that you should go the fuck away and discuss the meaningless laws of your own nothing country instead, but I sincerely doubt that you have grown a frontal lobe in the last five minutes, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

Of course, but federal gun laws, like prohibiting ex-felons from self defense weapons, are strictly illegal because they violate these basic rights and division of authority between individual/local/state, and federal.
States can pass reasonable gun laws, but feds are strictly and completely barred from any weapons laws not only because of the 2nd amendment, but because it would be a contradiction for the US military to have weapons that were illegal to others. The federal government is not to be superior to any other class of people.
Government is OF the people, not OVER the people.

Criminals of the People can be denied and disparaged in their natural rights as punishment.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

But of course the states ignoring immigration law are ok right you liberal asshole?

Only ignorant right wingers who don't even understand our Constitution say that. Show us the express Clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration in our federal Constitution or stop lying.

The precedent is Europeans forced their immigration, so then it is hypocrisy and irony to try to deny native immigration from south of the border.
Not only is there nothing in the Constitution to authorize immigration restriction, but the many treaties the US signed to acquire CA, AZ, UT, NV, NM, TX, FL, etc., prohibit any transportation roadblocks.

There is no appeal to ignorance of express law. Only right wingers are that hypocritical.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

But of course the states ignoring immigration law are ok right you liberal asshole?

Only ignorant right wingers who don't even understand our Constitution say that. Show us the express Clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration in our federal Constitution or stop lying.

Here is an express clause you love to ignore:

...the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I don't appeal to ignorance of the law like right wingers who have nothing but (legal) fallacy and practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the traditional 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)

 

[marvin martian]

his Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof

Executive orders, by definition, circumvent the legislative process and therefore, are not laws.

The EO was created to enhance legislature but it has been abused and used as an edict creator.

Especially by the previous guy.

What do you mean? Biden has already signed more EOs in three months than Trump did in four years. Did you not know this?

 

[danielpalos]

his Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof

Executive orders, by definition, circumvent the legislative process and therefore, are not laws.

The EO was created to enhance legislature but it has been abused and used as an edict creator.

Especially by the previous guy.

What do you mean? Biden has already signed more EOs in three months than Trump did in four years. Did you not know this?

lol. He simply overturned your guy's frivolity. See how simple it is when right wingers could not get anything passed due to lack of Constitutionality to get past the judiciary; only the right wing is that ignorant of Constitutional law but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

 

[hadit]

"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.

William G. COOPER et al., Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock, Arkansas Independent School District, and Virgil T. Blossom, Superintendent of Schools, Petitioners, v. John AARON et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

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.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

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.

Not after states and cities decided they can violate federal immigration law with impunity. They will violate federal gun laws as well. Expect it, and if the federal government cracks down on them, expect sanctuary cities to lose support as well.

 

[danielpalos]

"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.

William G. COOPER et al., Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock, Arkansas Independent School District, and Virgil T. Blossom, Superintendent of Schools, Petitioners, v. John AARON et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

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.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

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.

Not after states and cities decided they can violate federal immigration law with impunity. They will violate federal gun laws as well. Expect it, and if the federal government cracks down on them, expect sanctuary cities to lose support as well.

Show us the express Immigration clause and take them to Court; don't whine, right wingers.

 

[marvin martian]

his Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof

Executive orders, by definition, circumvent the legislative process and therefore, are not laws.

The EO was created to enhance legislature but it has been abused and used as an edict creator.

Especially by the previous guy.

What do you mean? Biden has already signed more EOs in three months than Trump did in four years. Did you not know this?

lol. He simply overturned your guy's frivolity. See how simple it is when right wingers could not get anything passed due to lack of Constitutionality to get past the judiciary; only the right wing is that ignorant of Constitutional law but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

So you lied when you claimed Trump "especially" abused the EO. That's what I thought.

Why do you lie about something that can be disproven with a five second Google search? Do you have a public humiliation kink or something?

 

[hadit]

"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.

William G. COOPER et al., Members of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock, Arkansas Independent School District, and Virgil T. Blossom, Superintendent of Schools, Petitioners, v. John AARON et al.

www.law.cornell.edu

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.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

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.

Not after states and cities decided they can violate federal immigration law with impunity. They will violate federal gun laws as well. Expect it, and if the federal government cracks down on them, expect sanctuary cities to lose support as well.

Show us the express Immigration clause and take them to Court; don't whine, right wingers.

Why? That has nothing to do with the point that they are violating immigration law and so other states will as well.

 

[danielpalos]

his Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof

Executive orders, by definition, circumvent the legislative process and therefore, are not laws.

The EO was created to enhance legislature but it has been abused and used as an edict creator.

Especially by the previous guy.

What do you mean? Biden has already signed more EOs in three months than Trump did in four years. Did you not know this?

lol. He simply overturned your guy's frivolity. See how simple it is when right wingers could not get anything passed due to lack of Constitutionality to get past the judiciary; only the right wing is that ignorant of Constitutional law but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

So you lied when you claimed Trump "especially" abused the EO. That's what I thought.

Why do you lie about something that can be disproven with a five second Google search? Do you have a public humiliation kink or something?

Frivolous eo's and frivolous suits at law could be considered abuse. Thank you.

 

[marvin martian]

his Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof

Executive orders, by definition, circumvent the legislative process and therefore, are not laws.

The EO was created to enhance legislature but it has been abused and used as an edict creator.

Especially by the previous guy.

What do you mean? Biden has already signed more EOs in three months than Trump did in four years. Did you not know this?

lol. He simply overturned your guy's frivolity. See how simple it is when right wingers could not get anything passed due to lack of Constitutionality to get past the judiciary; only the right wing is that ignorant of Constitutional law but want to be taken as seriously as the "gospel Truth".

So you lied when you claimed Trump "especially" abused the EO. That's what I thought.

Why do you lie about something that can be disproven with a five second Google search? Do you have a public humiliation kink or something?

Frivolous eo's and frivolous suits at law could be considered abuse. Thank you.

What were Trump's "frivolous" EOs? He only signed seven of them in four years, so this should be an easy one for you...

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

Of course, but federal gun laws, like prohibiting ex-felons from self defense weapons, are strictly illegal because they violate these basic rights and division of authority between individual/local/state, and federal.
States can pass reasonable gun laws, but feds are strictly and completely barred from any weapons laws not only because of the 2nd amendment, but because it would be a contradiction for the US military to have weapons that were illegal to others. The federal government is not to be superior to any other class of people.
Government is OF the people, not OVER the people.

Criminals of the People can be denied and disparaged in their natural rights as punishment.

I don't think so.
No one has the authority to create a society with 2 different levels of rights.
When incarcerated their are protected by their guards, so then do not need weapons for defense.
But once their sentence is over and they are no longer protected, it is illegal to continue punishing them by preventing their inherent right of self defense with weapons.

The only basis for punishment is to protect others from them.
Once their legal sentence is over, then no one has the authority to continue punishing them for no reason, and without having any recourse to defend themselves from that harmful and unnecessary punishment.
That is especially true with felony drug offenders, who harmed no one.

That is how Russia silences dissent. It claims they are criminals or insane, so then can have their rights abused at will.
Can't do that in the US.
If you want to take away a right like self defense with weapons, then you have to prove the need in court.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

But of course the states ignoring immigration law are ok right you liberal asshole?

Only ignorant right wingers who don't even understand our Constitution say that. Show us the express Clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration in our federal Constitution or stop lying.

Here is an express clause you love to ignore:

...the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I don't appeal to ignorance of the law like right wingers who have nothing but (legal) fallacy and practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the traditional 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)

Not sure what your point is, because what your are quoting from the Illinois state constitution says that Illinois can't infringe upon individual firearm rights either, unless you have committed a crime?

 

[danielpalos]

What were Trump's "frivolous" EOs? He only signed seven of them in four years, so this should be an easy one for you...

Are you simply ignorant or simply lying, right winger?

Trump issued a total of 894 executive actions, of which 220 were executive orders.

List of executive actions by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

Of course, but federal gun laws, like prohibiting ex-felons from self defense weapons, are strictly illegal because they violate these basic rights and division of authority between individual/local/state, and federal.
States can pass reasonable gun laws, but feds are strictly and completely barred from any weapons laws not only because of the 2nd amendment, but because it would be a contradiction for the US military to have weapons that were illegal to others. The federal government is not to be superior to any other class of people.
Government is OF the people, not OVER the people.

Criminals of the People can be denied and disparaged in their natural rights as punishment.

I don't think so.
No one has the authority to create a society with 2 different levels of rights.
When incarcerated their are protected by their guards, so then do not need weapons for defense.
But once their sentence is over and they are no longer protected, it is illegal to continue punishing them by preventing their inherent right of self defense with weapons.

The only basis for punishment is to protect others from them.
Once their legal sentence is over, then no one has the authority to continue punishing them for no reason, and without having any recourse to defend themselves from that harmful and unnecessary punishment.
That is especially true with felony drug offenders, who harmed no one.

That is how Russia silences dissent. It claims they are criminals or insane, so then can have their rights abused at will.
Can't do that in the US.
If you want to take away a right like self defense with weapons, then you have to prove the need in court.

Not sure how you reached your conclusion without appealing to ignorance. Criminals of the People are routinely denied and disparaged in their Individual Liberty.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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

Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.

reason.com

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.

But of course the states ignoring immigration law are ok right you liberal asshole?

Only ignorant right wingers who don't even understand our Constitution say that. Show us the express Clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration in our federal Constitution or stop lying.

Here is an express clause you love to ignore:

...the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I don't appeal to ignorance of the law like right wingers who have nothing but (legal) fallacy and practice of the abomination of hypocrisy.

Well regulated militia of the People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the traditional 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)

Not sure what your point is, because what your are quoting from the Illinois state constitution says that Illinois can't infringe upon individual firearm rights either, unless you have committed a crime?

Subject to the police power means "legislation" in this case.

 

[marvin martian]

What were Trump's "frivolous" EOs? He only signed seven of them in four years, so this should be an easy one for you...

Are you simply ignorant or simply lying, right winger?

Trump issued a total of 894 executive actions, of which 220 were executive orders.

List of executive actions by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once again, which were the "frivolous" EOs signed by Trump? Are you having trouble answering the question?

 

[danielpalos]

What were Trump's "frivolous" EOs? He only signed seven of them in four years, so this should be an easy one for you...

Are you simply ignorant or simply lying, right winger?

Trump issued a total of 894 executive actions, of which 220 were executive orders.

List of executive actions by Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Once again, which were the "frivolous" EOs signed by Trump? Are you having trouble answering the question?

lol. All of the ones overturned by Biden. Any questions?