][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
- Jun 12, 2010
- Reaction score
- Kannapolis, N.C.
The 9th and 10th amendment have no ruling over the Second Amendment because the second amendment is within the Federal jurisdictionYou have a logical problem. The phrase, "Shall not be infringed" has never been enforced, from Plato to the Common Law and in Scalia's comments in Heller. The 9th A. and the 10th A. allow for The People to enforce gun laws, especially since the 2nd notes "arms" not only guns, and all kinds of weapons have been outlawed by law in counties, cities and towns and villages and States and even The Congress.FWIW: In 1997 some sheriffs made it to the United States Supreme Court saying that they would not enforce the Brady Bill as they were elected by local voters and could not be forced to enforce federal laws.Project Exile was a joint operation with Richmond and the US attorneys office.My stats are just relevant as anyone else's here. If you make the proposition that Virginia is an anti-gun state and that leads to a decreased murder rate when federal laws are enforced, then you have to begin asking the uncomfortable questions:Irrelevant because guns in the hands of law abiding people are not the problemThe city of Kennesaw, Georgia requires every home to have a firearm inside. Their murder rate and their violent crime rate is one of the lowest in the entire United States.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
1) WHO is enforcing federal laws? If you tell me the local and state government, then there is problem. State and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. Furthermore, I fear if they did that, the courts would tell them they could not cherry pick. So, if / when confiscations begin the court might compel the local and state government to do so since the state / local government policy was to enforce federal laws prior to confiscation.
In other forums, some people in Virginia are ready to go war against the government over an over-zealous gun policy. Should the militia determine that the Constitutional Liberties of the people are being jeopardized, they can count on me to show up and help defend the citizenry
2) If one state enacts an anti-gun policy and another state enacts an opposite, but equal pro - gun policy and BOTH show reductions in crime, then the pro - anti gun policy is irrelevant on both counts and something else is the deciding factor
3) Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect that anyone who would give up essential Liberty for the promise of temporary Safety deserved neither Liberty NOR Safety. Therefore, applying my first two points, maybe you can employ something other than gun control and reduce firearms shootings.
Gun crimes were all tried in Federal Court and the offenders were sent to federal prison
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.
... The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials. Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly. As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."
Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
Those of you wanting the state and local governments to enforce federal laws are destroying your own country. As it stands now, if the federal government wanted to circumvent the Constitution, the states have no independent power to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws when they"sometimes" use locals to enforce federal laws (it's that whole equal protection of the laws thing.) So, you are advocating things like gun confiscation, gun bans, etc. if you want the states to enforce federal laws. If you're anti - gun, the precedent would mean that pro-pot states would have to abide by the federal laws and not turn a blind eye to the fact that pot is illegal under federal law.
Having a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes with a heavy price tag.
[Tenth Amendment] 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.
Are the bill of rights delegated to the United States Constitution?
Is not the second amendment part of the United States Constitution?
How about the 14th amendment?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.