As progressives, rallied by the Obama administration, actively work to curb Americans’ gun rights, one state has raised it’s hand and said “Stop!”
Just last Friday, Idaho announced that it would neither enforce nor abide by federal gun laws. The move was made possible by a measure introduced in the state’s House and Senate and passed unanimously by both chambers.
The law could very well be one of the most serious challenges to the federal government’s anti-gun agenda. Per the wording of the bill, Idaho law enforcement officers would face up to $1,000 in fines as well as misdemeanor charges if they enforce federal gun laws. These punitive measures will likely go a long way in discouraging Idaho LEO’s from collaborating with feds trying to enforce gun laws in the state.
Naturally, the federal government, to say nothing of this virulently anti-gun administration, is not going to be happy about a state rejecting it’s statutes regarding gun ownership and usage. Indeed, after a similar law was passed in Kansas, former Attorney General Eric Holder, a true maven of the gun control lobby, wrote a letter to Governor Brownback threatening legal action against the state over it.
Let’s hope that Idaho is able stay strong if Obama and his goons try to stop them.
Turn to the next page for more info:
Joe Davidson what is fascinating is that the American public is allowing one man to legislate for the whole Kingdom. Now to me that is fascinating. Where is the wisdom of that?
Good
Why should states follow federal law by Obama and other states like California harbor sanctuary cities. STOP ALL SANCTUARIES FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND STOP GIVING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ANY RIGHTS RESERVED FOR CITIZENS.
No Dan, what we must defend is allowing any one man to legislate for the rest of us! We have a process and that process must be respected. Where is the wisdom of having one man legislate for the rest of us?
Since you are giving lessons about the Constitution Explain to me Article 1. Section 1 of the Constitution which reads “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” If all legislative powers are invested in Congress, how does the President have the power to legislate? Look at the first word in the Article “All” meaning used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. So, we never have to get to the Supremacy Clause because what the President did is not legal. It is no law at all.
When you reply please tag me…. I will never find this post again. Thanks.
Unfortunately what will have to happen is that a Fed agency will have to arrest someone who violated this so called law and prove that the President did not have the legal authority to legislate.
I guess the first thing to ask is it really a law? How can one man legislate for the whole country? Hmm….. I must say I don’t see much wisdom in that. In fact, I know the Constitution CLEARLY places all power to legislate in Congress.
Hello !
He//o !
FLORIDA ! ? ! ? !
Where did they go ?
I would not call anyone smart who advocates the wisdom of allowing one man to make law for the rest of the Country. I am sure that our forefathers would not accept such an abuse of power. They would have denied the right because they deny the Principle. One man cannot legislate. Period!