Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
dont wait up,, danny boy is a broken record,,Are you simply ignorant or simply lying, right winger?What were Trump's "frivolous" EOs? He only signed seven of them in four years, so this should be an easy one for you...
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?
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.
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.
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.
No they do not have the power to defy federal law. It would have to be declared unconstitutional by the courts. Governors and state legislators do not have that right. The Constoitution gives the federal government to regulate. Sanctuary states only prevented state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've had more than one felon ask me what they could use for defense and stay legal, and the only thing I could suggest was black powder guns. But the truth is, even with one of those, if a felon shoots someone, he's probably going back to jail, at least for awhile.
So most of them say fuck it, and pick up a modern pistol (which are actually easier to get) and just hope they never have to use it.
And I don't blame them.
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.
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.
No they do not have the power to defy federal law. It would have to be declared unconstitutional by the courts. Governors and state legislators do not have that right. The Constoitution gives the federal government to regulate. Sanctuary states only prevented state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities.
Cooper was an appeal of a court order to integrate after Brown v. Board of Education.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.
To further that point, the gun grabbers continually argue that the 2nd Amendment is about a militia, and it is and has been the duty of the states to have armed citizens to supply a federal army in time of war. Thus, states would also be forbidden from infringing on the right, as doing so would limit access to a well armed body of people from which to form a unified federal army. So, it applies to ALL GOVERNMENTS, PERIOD!!!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,,,
you spelled "further infringe on the 2nd Amendment" wrong!!!!!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.
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-AndProviding for the Militia gives no authority over the militia or anyone.
Governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Sevice of the United States only gives the feds jurisdiction over called up troops.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;-And
as clearly stated in the 10th and 2nd A's its the people that hold jurisdiction of arms/guns,, not the feds or the states,,Well yes, the feds would have jurisdiction on property considered federal land, like forts, post offices, etc.
But the point is that for the general public, there should be no federal firearms laws.
They should all be at the state or local level.
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.Well yes, the feds would have jurisdiction on property considered federal land, like forts, post offices, etc.
But the point is that for the general public, there should be no federal firearms laws.
They should all be at the state or local level.
as clearly stated in the 10th and 2nd A's its the people that hold jurisdiction of arms/guns,, not the feds or the states,,
not sure why simple english is so hard for you,,
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.
