Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 12345678912 ... LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 310
  1. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Little more than teabagger window dressing.

    1. Municipalities or states for that matter do not decide on the constituionality of federal law.

    2. Federal law is the supreme law of the United States and supersedes local and state law.

    In essence the resolution is a "feel good" sham wasting both taxpayer money and time.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,030
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Little more than teabagger window dressing.

    1. Municipalities or states for that matter do not decide on the constituionality of federal law.

    2. Federal law is the supreme law of the United States and supersedes local and state law.

    In essence the resolution is a "feel good" sham wasting both taxpayer money and time.
    uuuum NO. Ever hear of the 10th Amendment? You might want to read it.

    State can and they have "nullified" Federal Law. For example, NOBamaCare, at least 36 states are considering "nullifying" NObamaCare within there state boarders. More recently Wyoming and Arizona passed laws regarding implementation for Assault Weapons Bans.

    The Feds can pass any law(s) they want. States can "opt out" if they so choose.
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  3. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,600
    Geer needs a shirt with a wingnut on it.
    "The road to Hell is paved with progressive policies."

  4. #17
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,030
    Quote Originally Posted by coolwhip View Post
    Geer needs a shirt with a wingnut on it.
    and a foil hat.
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  5. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    17,600
    and a foil hat.
    "The road to Hell is paved with progressive policies."

  6. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,267
    The Bill Of Rights are limits on all branches of government. Therefore, when the Second Amendment reads "shall not be infringed", it is the very highest law of the land and clearly and simply states that NO branch of government may prevent citizens from owning firearms.

    The Supreme Court has made incorrect rulings in the past and has even reversed itself. The Constitution however, remains the same. Local sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies have correctly taken the position that they will not enforce such gun confiscation laws that are unconstitutional.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Woburn, MA
    Posts
    6,504
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    uuuum NO. Ever hear of the 10th Amendment? You might want to read it.

    State can and they have "nullified" Federal Law. For example, NOBamaCare, at least 36 states are considering "nullifying" NObamaCare within there state boarders. More recently Wyoming and Arizona passed laws regarding implementation for Assault Weapons Bans.

    The Feds can pass any law(s) they want. States can "opt out" if they so choose.
    Not exactly true. Similar to the recent passing of pot laws, everyone is reminded that federal law still applies. Whether the feds will intervene or not on that or Obamacare is anyone's guess, but they certainly have the right to. And if they do, they'll win. Trust me on that.

    Generally speaking, what happens if the states try to ignore a federal statute is that it will eventually be reviewed and judged by the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the feds many more times than it has backed the states. The problem with the 10th is that it is not well written, in my opinion, and is open to broad interpretation. That invites agenda laden justices to "go to town" so to speak. Still, as I said, the SC has most often supported the fed view (on both sides of the aisle mind you) and this goes back as far as Justice Marshall in the 1800's and cases like McCulloch vs. Maryland and Gibbons vs. Ogden.

    Interesting that 36 states can't stand up to the feds, you ask? Of course they can. Just not in that way. The problem is that I highly doubt that all 36 are in lock step about what is bad and what is good. If they were, nothing says that they can't put forth and ratify a consitutional change that might prevent obamacare's enactment (though what that thing might be I can't say), but first they would all have to agree on what is good and what is bad and what the change actually was which is certainly not as easy as what we've already seen along the resistance front.
    "Social networking" is an oxymoron.

  8. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    uuuum NO. Ever hear of the 10th Amendment? You might want to read it.
    10th amendment, 10th amendment, hmmmmm....... Why yes I could be mistaken but I think I may possibly be aware of the 10th amendment.

    Since the Supreme Court has consistenly held that the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms, that would make the 10th amendment, in this case, irrelevent, a moot point.,



    State can and they have "nullified" Federal Law. For example, NOBamaCare, at least 36 states are considering "nullifying" NObamaCare within there state boarders.
    I expect you forgot that just recently the Supreme Court found that Obamacare was constitutional. As such it is the supreme law of the land and trumps state law.

    FYI: Nullifiication has been rejected as a valid point of constitutional law every time it has been argued in the Supreme Court.



    More recently Wyoming and Arizona passed laws regarding implementation for Assault Weapons Bans.
    Kinda jumping the gun as no AWB has been passed into law but again the feds have the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms.

    The Feds can pass any law(s) they want. States can "opt out" if they so choose.
    They can try but the only legal way they can do it is win their case in the Supreme Court.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh B View Post
    The Bill Of Rights are limits on all branches of government. Therefore, when the Second Amendment reads "shall not be infringed", it is the very highest law of the land and clearly and simply states that NO branch of government may prevent citizens from owning firearms.
    True, but like all rights, the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. Governments have the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms.

    The Supreme Court has made incorrect rulings in the past and has even reversed itself
    True, but the Supreme Court has, through the ages consistenly ruled that governments have the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms.


    The Constitution however, remains the same.
    The words may remain the same but the interpretations of those words often changes.




    Local sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies have correctly taken the position that they will not enforce such gun confiscation laws that are unconstitutional.
    For that matter, they are not required to enforce any law that has been deemed a violation of the constitution.

    So their positions and your point on this matter are moot.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,030
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    10th amendment, 10th amendment, hmmmmm....... Why yes I could be mistaken but I think I may possibly be aware of the 10th amendment.

    Since the Supreme Court has consistenly held that the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms, that would make the 10th amendment, in this case, irrelevent, a moot point.,



    I expect you forgot that just recently the Supreme Court found that Obamacare was constitutional. As such it is the supreme law of the land and trumps state law.

    FYI: Nullifiication has been rejected as a valid point of constitutional law every time it has been argued in the Supreme Court.



    Kinda jumping the gun as no AWB has been passed into law but again the feds have the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms.

    They can try but the only legal way they can do it is win their case in the Supreme Court.
    in that case you might want to call the 30 states that have all ready "opt-out" of NObamaCare and tell them your Lord and Savor, NObama, has ruled over them and they aren't playing nice-nice with your Savior.
    And the SCOTUS has said that the STATES have the right to regulate firearms. It has nothing to do with Federal law.
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  11. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    I'm an old cowhand from the Rio Grande
    Posts
    17,089
    Quote Originally Posted by jmac00 View Post
    in that case you might want to call the 30 states that have all ready "opt-out" of NObamaCare and tell them your Lord and Savor,
    NObama, has ruled over them and they aren't playing nice-nice with your Savior
    Obama didn't rule over them, the Supreme Court did.






    And the SCOTUS has said that the STATES have the right to regulate firearms. It has nothing to do with Federal law.
    I don't know where you heard that but you are woefully incorrect.

  12. #25
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    14,030
    Quote Originally Posted by geerair View Post
    Obama didn't rule over them, the Supreme Court did.






    I don't know where you heard that but you are woefully incorrect.
    ooh really, then why does every state have different laws respecting to firearms?

    How did NYS pass the Safe Act despite what you say is a federal regulation, Why does Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming (and one other state) have no licensing regulation other than felons and mentally ill can't own firearms.

    If the federal Firearms laws have the supreme law of the land, why are there 10,000 pages of laws with 27,000 different firearms laws on the books through out the country.

    why is there no ONE LAW.
    "Arguing with liberals...it's like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious." -- Anonymous

  13. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,267
    The final law of the land is the constitution itself. The constitution has premuption (sp) over all other laws, federal, state or local. Given that the second amendment is a prohibition against gun control it is in place to prevent the levels of government from taking away our ultimate right to own firearms.

    The fact is, the supreme court has only ruled on the second amendment a couple of times and has not actually defined the meaning of the second amendment. Its meaning is quite clear when it says "shall not be infringed". The supreme court has ignored most of the state and local firearms laws up to this point. Therefore we are waiting for the supreme court to take up the second amendment issues again.

    Some states actually understand the real meaning of "shall not be infringed" and are therefore opposing the current federal move to confiscate firearms. Clearly even a fifth grader can understand "shall not be infringed". Geer cannot. Liberals cannot. And even the supreme court is a political body divided according to their individual personal leaning. But, the clear meaning of these words in plain English cannot be avoided but can be dismissed by those who like Bill Clinton play with the meaning of the word "is" in an effort to get their own way.

    Meanwhile, many local police officers and sheriffs know the real meaning of the second amendment by simply reading what is says. I simply want to make the court define the words "Shall not" and "Infringed" and the apply those terms to the second amendment. Any other meaning other that no gun control is simply incorrect. If you dont like the second amendment then work to change the amendment itself but dont lie, cheat and redefine the English language.

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 12345678912 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event