The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Federal and State Legislation => Topic started by: santahog on April 30, 2013, 10:50:10 PM
-
A surprise from the AL Senate today!!
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/04/alabama-senate-votes-to-nullify-all-federal-gun-control-measures-24-6/
Alabama Senate votes to Nullify All Federal Gun Control Measures, 24-6
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (April 30, 2013) – A bill to nullify all federal gun control measures passed by a wide margin in the Alabama Senate today. The vote was 24-6 (roll call here)
Senate Bill 93 (SB93) declares that “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the Second Amendment,” and therefore, “are invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
If passed into law, the immediate effect would be that no state or local agent, employee, or asset would be authorized for us in the enforcement (or assistance in the enforcement) of any federal gun control measures – past, present, or future.
Bill Sponsor Senator Paul Sanford affirmed as much during debate on the bill. He said, ”They’re not going to use our law enforcement officials to enforce their law that is unconstitutional.”
This would make a HUGE dent in any federal effort to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms in Alabama – and would be a big step forward for gun rights supporters there. As Judge Andrew Napolitano has said recently, such widespread noncompliance can make a federal law “nearly impossible to enforce” (video here). And in those limited situations where enforcement does occur, Rosa Parks has taught us all the power of “NO!” Passage of SB93 would mark the beginning of the end of federal gun control in Alabama.
When challenged on the Constitution’s supremacy clause, Sanford held his ground, ”If it’s unconstitutional then the supremacy clause never comes into effect.”
The so-called “supremacy clause” of the Constitution says that federal laws made “in pursuance” of the Constitution are supreme:
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. (emphasis added)
There is absolutely ZERO serious dispute about the fact that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states to carry out its laws. None. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times.
In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.
In the 2012 case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant expansion of Medicaid was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.
In each of these cases, the Supreme Court made is quite clear that their opinion is that the federal government cannot require the states to act, or even coerce them to act through a threat to lose funding. Their opinion is correct. If the feds pass a law, they can sure try to enforce it if they want. But the states absolutely do NOT have to help them in any way.
In case the full state and local noncompliance doesn’t work as intended, SB93 includes a mechanism to take additional steps in the future. It reads, “The Legislature shall adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
The path such measures could take will only be determined over time – and through the representatives of the People of Alabama.
-
"Senate Bill 93 (SB93) declares that “All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the Second Amendment,” and therefore, “are invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
If passed into law, the immediate effect would be that no state or local agent, employee, or asset would be authorized for us in the enforcement (or assistance in the enforcement) of any federal gun control measures – past, present, or future."
Any questions ? ;D
-
Yup,.....
Good For Alabama!!!!
-
What would happen realistically in a SHTF scenario where the feds wanted to go into Alabama is they would move in - in force - arrest the po-po, and then go do what they wanted to. By the time the governor got the National Guard mobilized and on the scene, the feds would be gone with what they wanted, or would have a reinforced enclave.
Do not under-estimate your enemy people, they are mean, venal, nasty and stupid - but not that stupid!
And that's assuming the feds don't take over the NG armories and command staff too. They're still federalized ain't they?
-
What would happen realistically in a SHTF scenario where the feds wanted to go into Alabama is they would move in - in force - arrest the po-po, and then go do what they wanted to. By the time the governor got the National Guard mobilized and on the scene, the feds would be gone with what they wanted, or would have a reinforced enclave.
Do not under-estimate your enemy people, they are mean, venal, nasty and stupid - but not that stupid!
And that's assuming the feds don't take over the NG armories and command staff too. They're still federalized ain't they?
Well, I tell ya what.
If it comes down to the feds coming in like that, having the State Police, Local Police, Sheriffs all on The People's side will make it quite a fight.
If passed the next thing I would do if I were Governor, is activate a State Militia with EVERYONE physically able in it.
I can't imagine even this administration thinking they could "make an example" of Alabama and have anything but a couple of states not succeed.
Use cell phone or tornado warning horns in case the cell towers are shut down, to spread the alert and call to arms.
-
Buford T. Justice....
Get into the back counties of Alabamastan, with local support, and gee,...suddenly the Feds will realize this was a bad idea.
And yes, those are banjo's you hear....Might work in Boston, ain't gonna happen in Tuscaloosa...
-
Looks like Kansas is catching heat from Herr Holder about this already.
Eric Holder to Kansas governor: New state gun law unconstitutional
A new law in Kansas that criminalizes the enforcement of federal gun controls in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/attorney-general-eric-holder-kansas-gov-sam-brownb/
-
Looks like Kansas is catching heat from Herr Holder about this already.
Eric Holder to Kansas governor: New state gun law unconstitutional
A new law in Kansas that criminalizes the enforcement of federal gun controls in the state is unconstitutional, Attorney General Eric H. Holder said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/attorney-general-eric-holder-kansas-gov-sam-brownb/
The outrageous hypocrisy of that gun smuggling , smug bas*ard making that statement makes me scream . >:(
The things this communist supporting, POS has already done, dating back to the Clinton years should have seen him in prison years ago.
-
The outrageous hypocrisy of that gun smuggling , smug bas*ard making that statement makes me scream . >:(
The things this communist supporting, POS has already done, dating back to the Clinton years should have seen him in prison years ago.
You got that right.
In the story, Holder complains that this law would make federal officers have to decide between risking arrest and doing their duty.
I would change just a few words and it would read. "Gun laws make honest citizens have to decide between risking arrest and protecting themselves and their families."
And it's the laws those poor put upon federal officers are trying to enforce that put honest citizens in that situation.
Takes hypocrisy to the sublime.
sub·lime (s-blm)
2. An ultimate example.
-
Heard a good point that when Progressive/Lib's cry "That's Unconstitutional",...and than immediately return to usurping, violating, stonewalling, obfuscating, and passing Un-Constitutional Legislation, they are justified...
IF, (big if), the Feds want to get froggy and enter a state with the intention of flexing a little Fed muscle, they better remember the state they choose very carefully. Boston/Mass. was a test.
A Red Southern/Mid-Western State, will be the FINAL EXAM!!!
Most uh dem kountry boyz, don take right kindlee to dem dayum yankee dc fellas startin a rukus down heare...Bring It On Son!!
When the Feds actually kiss their wives and children good-bye, to deploy into a state like Alabama (and a good number of others) KNOWING there is a chance they are going to DIE, Holder will slither away like the coward he is.
It will not end well. OBTW, CNS news is reporting 29% of registered voters think Armed Revolution Might Be Necessary.
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/poll-29-registered-voters-believe-armed-revolution-might-be-necessary
-
Very interesting numbers.
+/- 3.4 margin of error...which means 25% for the low margin...still remarkable.
Broken down by party, 18% of the Democrats in the poll thought it might be necessary...
I think when the lash of Obamacare lands, that number might go up..
Also, I imagine the first action the Feds will take against Alabama or Kansas would be cutting off all federal funds....let the state take them to court and see if the and afford several years of litigation.
-
I know how the feds would start. they would go to every ffl, close them down, take all thier guns. No one will ship guns into the state as there would be no legal ffls( interstate remember) Reality is the feds can take a ffl with a pen stroke. They don't even need to show up.
-
And, TAB, they will have help from local authorities who pass laws and regulations limiting where FFLs can operate in their jurisdictions...just like is done in DC. Where there is a will, there is a way. Like the Ayatollah Kogani always says: If you are going to pre-empt, do it first!
-
And, TAB, they will have help from local authorities who pass laws and regulations limiting where FFLs can operate in their jurisdictions...just like is done in DC. Where there is a will, there is a way. Like the Ayatollah Kogani always says: If you are going to pre-empt, do it first!
Well, preemption would be when every FFL in that state is robbed of it's entire inventory before the Feds get there.
-
Well, the new law, such as it is, is going into effect on August 1st.
The reason I never reported back on this is because at the last minute (week) of negotiations, the NRA and Slabama Sheriff's Association got in and just took the whole thing flat apart.. It turned into such a strung out waste of time kinda mess, that nobody was even willing to do a summary of the new law, that had been being redone, almost hourly before that mess struck..
Now, the Sheriff of my, (and others, I'm sure) County is going around all the banks and other businesses and telling them that the law lwts them restrict, or says that we can't, or something like that.. It's not true, btw.. We can carry nearly anywhere now except the Cop Shop, Fed Buildings, State House, County Courthouse, kinda things, and School Sporting Events, (which we could do prior to this intervention by the soggy hand of the law).. OC is legal everywhere now, except the places mentioned above, but the Sheriffs are going around spreading tales, trying to create trouble. How can they even do that is beyond me...
I'll get a copy of the final SB 286 up here if anybody wants it.
Let me know if you do..
::) :( :'(