Nullify State gun laws

[Clovis]

About time!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...islation-to-nullify-state-level-gun-controls/

Didn't see it posted elsewhere...should make Frosh and friends cry in their chardonnay.

 

[scjamesm]

This is a law i can get behind

 

[K31]

Why stop at rifles and shotguns?

 

[motorcoachdoug]

Even tho i like the law i do not see it passing the senate and mabe not even the house... Unless Mich stops trying to to everyone on both sides of the chamber and take the and cracks it over the republicans and some demorats as well

 

[sgt23preston]

It won't pass in New York or Merry-Land or in any other Liberal State...

 

[K31]

It won't pass in New York or Merry-Land or in any other Liberal State...

This would be a Federal law.

 

[Biggfoot44]

I like it , but ... Far less likely to pass Congress at present than the stall Reciprocity bill .


Added from the Society of Vocabulary Weenies - This Bill would Preempt certian State Laws, not Nullifying.

 

[2nd=Good+Substantial]

One set of rules would be nice BUT ... it would raise the stakes if the current 20 year trend reversed back to more control. For example, the insurance industry works hard to support individual state regulation. A patchwork of confusing laws is considered preferable to the Feds calling the shots.

Also, peasants in Marylandstan might win but current free Americans could see new restrictions.

 

[Cal68]

I like it , but ... Far less likely to pass Congress at present than the stall Reciprocity bill .


Added from the Society of Vocabulary Weenies - This Bill would Preempt certian State Laws, not Nullifying.

I like the bill but I agree with the above poster that the bill faces a tough challenge. I keep hoping that Congress will pass the Hearing Aid Protection Act which has already been introduced in the House but there seems to be little movement on it either.

Cal68

 

[K31]

One set of rules would be nice BUT ... it would raise the stakes if the current 20 year trend reversed back to more control. For example, the insurance industry works hard to support individual state regulation. A patchwork of confusing laws is considered preferable to the Feds calling the shots.

Also, peasants in Marylandstan might win but current free Americans could see new restrictions.

So could "free Americans". This protects them as well.

 

[danb]

Would be nice, but congress cannot even agree to repeal Obamacare, and they ran for 7 years on that.

Besides, we already have this thing called the constitution. We need judges willing to legalize it.

 

[j_h_smith]

This is a double edge sword. Sure, it would be nice if a state like Maryland couldn't mandate laws more restrictive than a Federal law. But what about states that have less restrictive laws? Secondly, what happens when the Feds are controlled by less than friendly critters to the 2A? Just imagine the ramifications of 16 straight years of Democrat Party rule.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

One set of rules would be nice BUT ... it would raise the stakes if the current 20 year trend reversed back to more control. For example, the insurance industry works hard to support individual state regulation. A patchwork of confusing laws is considered preferable to the Feds calling the shots.

Also, peasants in Marylandstan might win but current free Americans could see new restrictions.

And do you really think that if liberals were in control they wouldn't try to pass new federal rules, with or without state preemption?

 

[smokey]

I do believe the federal government ALREADY has a law that should nullify the state 2a infringements...

 

[BeoBill]

Relax - it'll NEVER get out of committee. Just like all the others. Know it.

 

[Decoy]

Deal making time,

Booker introduces bill to legalize marijuana nationwide

http://www.politico.com/states/new-...r-seeks-federal-marijuana-legalization-113716

 

[tkd4life]

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.

 

[rob]

That which the feds givith, the feds can takith away.

We need judges to uphold the 2nd amendment.

The real need is to overturn/void illegal laws passed by big - brother libtards.

Rob

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I527 using Tapatalk

 

[whistlersmother]

There shouldn't need to be a reason for this bill. The reason is called the Second Amendment.

What we need is impeachment of judges who rule against "shall not be infringed."

 

[Biggfoot44]

Well heck yeah , states should be able to do whatever they want with out interference from pesky Federal Civil Rights.

Some good old Racial Segregation is just the thing to get Baltimore transfation rolling.

Plenty of states could put some selective indentured servitude to good use .

We could have better society if we just rounded up all the Muslims, Jews, and Charismatic Fundamentalists, and if not ship them to camps, at least make sure they are registered and closely monitored .

Yes, I am playing " Let's switch the Noun to make a Point " . The Point is Fundamental Civil Rights apply to all, and States can't opt out .