Nullify State gun laws

tkd4life said:

As a states rights guy, I don't like this bill. It has just as much of a chance to get passed at the HPA, but a State should be able to do what they want. This will definitely get challenged in the slim chance it's passed.

Click to expand...

Engine4 said:

I'd like to respectfully disagree. State's rights are good, I just don't think they should overrule those rights already in the BoR.

Click to expand...

tkd4life said:

Funny thing is I agree with you 100%. The BoR should trump everything and I share the same interpretation of the 2A as I guess most here do. IMO the courts should overturn the unconstitional laws, that is what they are there for. Having the legislature do it can be a slippery slope.

Eventually the Dems will take back the Fed and when they do, they shouldn't be able to say that people in Montana have to live the same as people in Downtown LA.

Click to expand...

GlocksAndPatriots said:

But they WILL do that no matter what we do. Taking the moral high road isn't an effective strategy for governing.

Click to expand...

K31 said:

This would be a Federal law.

Click to expand...

tkd4life said:

As a states rights guy, I don't like this bill. It has just as much of a chance to get passed at the HPA, but a State should be able to do what they want. This will definitely get challenged in the slim chance it's passed.

Click to expand...

psucobra96 said:

Why should a state be allowed to limit a Constitutional right, states doing what they want have created the issue and why we currently sit infringed.

Click to expand...

swamplynx said:

Exactly. This is no different than the Civil Rights Act. It is just to clarify Rights that are already protected by the 2A, that the courts refuse to acknowledge or act on, and that some states choose to infringe upon. It isn't giving the Federal government any new powers.

Click to expand...

GlocksAndPatriots said:

But they WILL do that no matter what we do. Taking the moral high road isn't an effective strategy for governing.

Click to expand...

MrNiceGuy said:

I'm forced to agree with tkd4life. I can't go for "effective" above and beyond legal and I can't find anywhere in the US Constitution in which the states ceded authority specifically to the Federal government for laws concerning arms. Only thing I see is the Second Amendment, and if you check my post history, you'll see I'm a hardcore advocate for extremely strict enforcement of that across the board.

In other words, I want the rule of law to prevail. The Federal government lacks the requisite authority to tell the states what to do about firearms (or arms in general), but both the states and the Federal government lack the requisite authority to enact most of the restrictions they've already put in place. Enforce the Second Amendment strictly and unapologetically; don't enable the Federal government to seize even more authority for the short term ideological satisfaction of beating back a handful of restrictions in a handful of states.

If we really want to go this route, pass an amendment to the Constitution that codifies a bunch of the basic concepts protecting Second Amendment rights already within the laws of ~40 states. Should be no issue getting 38 states to ratify an amendment that mirrors what they already have in their own laws. That and judicial reform - starting at the Supreme Court with the appointment of staunch 2A defenders - are our two legal routes to solve this problem.

Taking advantage of a temporary power glut is dangerous. That swings too easily to the other side. Working outside the law (e.g. unconstitutional Federal power grabs) is every bit as dangerous; perhaps even moreso. I don't like what lots of states have done about a lot of different issues. Doesn't mean I want an all-powerful Federal legislature or executive showing up to right every wrong. Sometimes the medicine is worse than the disease.

Click to expand...

Fishguy said:

Just sit back and wait for Trump to pack the courts a little more then challenge all state gun control laws under the equal protections clause like the libs did with Roe v. Wade.

Click to expand...

tkd4life said:

I think this is best case scenario. So far I love his pick in Justice Gorsuch now all we need is for one or two of the limbs to retire and we're on an even better path.

Click to expand...