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 $1,000 in fines as well as misdemeanor charges if they enforce federal gun laws. These punitive measures will likely go a long way in discouraging Idaho LEO’s from collaborating with feds trying to enforce gun laws in the state.
Naturally, the federal government, to say nothing of this virulently anti-gun administration, is not going to be happy about a state rejecting it’s statutes regarding gun ownership and usage. Indeed, after a similar law was passed in Kansas, former Attorney General Eric Holder, a true maven of the gun control lobby, wrote a letter to Governor Brownback threatening legal action against the state over it.
Let’s hope that Idaho is able stay strong if Obama and his goons try to stop them.
Turn to the next page for more info:
Idaho going to make the muslim cry again
Kudos to Idaho !
why is this fest of$#%&!@*ups in my facebook feed?
Idaho here we come!
Time to move to Idaho!
GO IDAHO !!
You go, – Idaho!
In the context of the 2A, “well-regulated ” means armed with weapons comparable to and compatible with the standing military. Try reading the contemporary writings and letters of the authors of the Constitution if you have so much difficulty understanding plain English.
My question is what makes it okay to take constitutional rights from some (people who already are banned from owning weapons) and not okay to take yours? I am just curious why so many people say its good to take rights from another but then say the constitution says no one can take theirs…. So, people think the constitution applies differently or is selective to individuals? It is a serious question but no one wants to seriously answer it.
Should all people have irrevocable constitutional rights or just some people?
Montana won’t !