Arizona state senator Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City) and various co-sponsors are put forth the the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” this past Jan. 30th, which considers any federal laws “invalid and void” in Arizona if said laws infringe on the Second Amendment.
Go Arizona! So good to see that there are still patriots, like Kelli Ward, in this country at a time when we seem to be beset by those in government who seek to destroy our Constitution.
According to the TenthAmendmentCenter.com, it “Passed Rules committee, 4-2” on Feb. 24th and is due for a full Senate vote in the coming days.
You can help with the following actions:
1. Call YOUR state senator. Strongly, but respectfully, express your support for the bill and let them know you want to see them vote YES on SB1294. If you get your state senator’s voice mail, leave a courteous message and ask for them to call you back to talk about it. If you don’t hear from them in 1-2 days, call them again and repeat the process.
A phone call has 10x the impact of an email, so with just days till a vote, please make sure to give them a call.
Find your state senator here: http://www.azleg.gov/alisStaticPages/HowToContactMember.asp
2. Share this information widely. Pass this along to friends and family in Arizona by email, social media and more.
3. Call Back – in 1-2 days. If you are unable to get a confirmed YES vote from your state senator, call back in 1-2 days at most, urging a yes vote again.
4. on Twitter? Retweet!
5. Write a letter to the editor Look up your local newspaper and submit a letter to the editor voicing your support for SB1294. It’s essential that Arizona no longer help but actively oppose the federal government’s attacks on the Second Amendment. Passing SB1294 will start that process.
Source: tenthamendmentcenter.com
Arizona state senator Kelli Ward (R-Lake Havasu City) has been joined by various co-sponsors in putting forth the the Second Amendment Preservation Act: an act that considers any federal laws “invalid and void” in Arizona if said laws infringe on the Second Amendment.
FreedomOutpost.com posted the text of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which would not only nullify overreaching federal gun laws within the state of Arizona but would also prevent agents of the state from participating in their enforcement.
The bill specifically bars “an agency or political subdivision of [Arizona] or an employee of an agency or political subdivision of [Arizona] acting in the employee’s official capacity or a corporation providing services on behalf of [Arizona] or a political subdivision of [Arizona]” from “[enforcing] any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition within the limits of [Arizona].”
According to the Examiner.com, senator Ward explained the need for his bill thus: “We’ve sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the constitution long enough. We’re going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights.”
On January 27th Breitbart News reported Florida state representative Dane Eagle (R-Cape Coral) was pushing legislation to end that state’s cooperation with federal gun laws as well.
All states should do this !!! do some research Burt !!
Go Arizona .
Don’t just need a preservation act for the 2nd, need it for the Whole Bill of Rights.
All states need to follow suit !!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?186765-Our-County-Sheriffs-Have-More-Power-Than-the-POTUS
The Federalist Papers Summary No 48: Madison
February 1, 1788
Having shown in the last paper that the separation of powers need not be total as critics claim, he now argues it should not be total but rather constitutional restraints on each branch should be available to the other branches. This paper makes the argument for the restraints but does not define them. Everyone agrees that the powers belonging to one department ought not to be directly and completely controlled by either of the other departments. Equally it is evident that neither of them ought to be able to overrule the others and that power needs to be effectively restrained. “The next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each against the invasion of the others. What this security ought to be is the great problem to be solved.”
Is it sufficient to merely state in a document the precise boundaries of power for each branch and “trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?” Not if experience is to be trusted for within the governments of the States everywhere the legislative departments are extending their power over the other branches. Their constitutions have been written seemingly more concerned with the tyranny of an hereditary magistrate supported by an hereditary legislative branch than with the danger from an all powerful legislative branch. When a legislature passes laws with a “question of real-nicety” who will question the constitutionality but when executives or judiciaries exceed their more narrow powers they are easily seen. Also legislatures alone can tax the people and in many States provide the salary structures for those in the other branches.
He finishes the paper with a discussion of the Virginia and Pennsylvania State Governments to show how constitutional powers have been exceeded thus concluding merely enumerating the powers of each branch on parchment is insufficient in controlling the powers of each. Two of the constitutional violations in Pennsylvania are of interest. One was because the legislature did not publish ahead of time for public consideration a great number of bills of a public nature as required by law. They probably thought they needed to pass the bill so the people could see what was in it. The second were violations by the executive branch which had grown as large as the legislative branch thus the individual executive could be separated from the actions of the entire branch and therefore unrestrained relative to that of individual responsibility. We see this in our current administration where the response to odious regulations by the EPA , SEC, NLRB, and by other departments is not often directed at the chief executive who makes possible these actions.
The Federalist Papers Summary No 48: Madison
February 1, 1788
Having shown in the last paper that the separation of powers need not be total as critics claim, he now argues it should not be total but rather constitutional restraints on each branch should be available to the other branches. This paper makes the argument for the restraints but does not define them. Everyone agrees that the powers belonging to one department ought not to be directly and completely controlled by either of the other departments. Equally it is evident that neither of them ought to be able to overrule the others and that power needs to be effectively restrained. “The next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each against the invasion of the others. What this security ought to be is the great problem to be solved.”
Is it sufficient to merely state in a document the precise boundaries of power for each branch and “trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?” Not if experience is to be trusted for within the governments of the States everywhere the legislative departments are extending their power over the other branches. Their constitutions have been written seemingly more concerned with the tyranny of an hereditary magistrate supported by an hereditary legislative branch than with the danger from an all powerful legislative branch. When a legislature passes laws with a “question of real-nicety” who will question the constitutionality but when executives or judiciaries exceed their more narrow powers they are easily seen. Also legislatures alone can tax the people and in many States provide the salary structures for those in the other branches.
He finishes the paper with a discussion of the Virginia and Pennsylvania State Governments to show how constitutional powers have been exceeded thus concluding merely enumerating the powers of each branch on parchment is insufficient in controlling the powers of each. Two of the constitutional violations in Pennsylvania are of interest. One was because the legislature did not publish ahead of time for public consideration a great number of bills of a public nature as required by law. They probably thought they needed to pass the bill so the people could see what was in it. The second were violations by the executive branch which had grown as large as the legislative branch thus the individual executive could be separated from the actions of the entire branch and therefore unrestrained relative to that of individual responsibility. We see this in our current administration where the response to odious regulations by the EPA , SEC, NLRB, and by other departments is not often directed at the chief executive who makes possible these actions.
i agree
I agree
Ray Cly Shirl Cly