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:
Yeah
Take back America
Good job Idaho. God is with you and he is in control
Hey if a city can choose to not enforce immigration laws I guess a state can choose to not enforce gun laws
Hey if a city can choose to not enforce immigration laws I guess a state can choose to not enforce gun laws.
Ralph Smith don’t be so quick to assume. Many of us are ranchers, farmers and hobby farmers. My husband grew up on a ranch in Idaho. We bought land in Idaho to relocate and retire. Most ppl coming from California to Idaho are not being represented here and are just plain done.
Boise area, on the other hand, is going left. Have you heard what the young ppl have been saying about good ‘ol Idaho? They certainly want ‘change’. Are you sure you got it right? Go check out KTVB, an fb ‘news’ outlet. You might be surprised by the comments under articles. There are many young native Idahoans that want left policies in gov.
Eric, Obama has divided this country. Do you agreed with him trading Bergsdahl for 5 terrorists, 3 of who are back in action, without congress approval, letting others go so he can close Gitmo. He has bowed before other “Presidents” , apologized for America, then threw Money at them, and when nothing worked, bent over and grabbed his ankles like the sapineless$#%&!@*he is. As for executive orders, the other Presidents used them for relatively mundane things. That pos Obama uses them to bypass congress and ignore the constitution. Go back to your Wal-Mart job and stay off of forums like this that require intelligence. You are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Bout damn time!
The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution. To be apart of this union of united States, the States have to be within the guides established by the federal Constitution. The States or citizens have certain powers that the federal government is impeded to have (by the Constitution). The union of (nation) States have their own Constitutions. All of them are different, but still use the similar confines of the federal document. Even like Virginia, their Constitution was ratified before the federal Constitution, even the Bill of Rights of Virginia’s Constitution was mostly used for the united States Constitution’s “Bill of Rights”. The federal Constitution has a supremacy clause though. In a nutshell, the federal Constitution is for the federal government, the States’ Constitutions are for the States. Counties, cities, towns and small communities have charters or documents that defines it’s powers and limitations and how they are to be used. Hugh, you are somewhat right. Actually and ultimately, “the people”, the individual citizens have all the power that is required. Hugh you’re right with the letting go of its powers, but those powers of those States had to have their Constitutions changed. There is no “better good of their citizens”. “The people” already have inalienable rights. A State’s Constitution is changed only by amendment(s), no different than the federal Constitution. If the original Constitution is changed, there will be a noting of what changed. In no way am I stating that any Constitution is perfect, they are not. Mankind’s sovereign natural order will be in any Constitution.
The States relinquished their liberties, to be a part of the federal Constitution, the union, the united States. In other words, to be a State after ratification, it must fall within the definition and confines of the federal Constitution. It is not to say that one and or some may make their own country, separate from the united States!
A State’s Constitution defines what its powers are and where that power ends.