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:
Isaac, when and only IF, the federal government provides safeguards that make registration or confiscation impossible , then and only then will I even entertain increased oversight. It is however patently clear from their statements and submitted legislation that increased control and bans are precisely what they have in mind so therefore I have no interest in giving an inch .
Damn straight, Obama will be gone soon, gonna p**s on his legacy!!!!
To the issue of the supremacy clause…to enforce it, the action identified must be constitutional . If it is not, then under American Jurisprudence late 2nd, sect 256, the statute or ruling is wholly void, un enforceable, and does not have to be obeyed. So who decides?…SCOTUS right ? Wrong …the states and the people. How is that so?, here’s how. Play the hypothetical…let us assume that SCOTUS holds that summary execution without trial is legal. This obviously sits in direct contradiction to the 5 th amendment. Many will say, “well that would never happen “… True, but if that ruling were made by SCOTUS the correct response at any level is to refuse to obey it and apply impeachment. This is applicable to any ruling /act that causes a constitutional violation.
A state would be subjected to the federal law until such a time where that federal law would be ruled unconstitutional. SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of federal laws.
States do not get to determine a constitutional violation.
Yes Congress has the power to impeach a judge through a Senate trial but only for violating same types of offenses as any other government official for Articles I or II of the Constitution.
To begin with, David, your photo of what appears to be you in a military uniform, making a political argument, violates the provisions of DoD ethics with regard to political activities. Secondly, I your loyalty is FIRST to the constitution of the United States. Your oath of commission references that and ONLY that with no reference to the UCMJ or obedience to orders. It was designed that way for a reason. You should also be aware that for federal rulings to be applicable under the supremacy clause they must be made “in furtherance” of the Constitution. If they are not, then the provisions of American Jurisprudence late 2nd, sect 256 kick in and the ruling is wholly void, unenforceable, and the states have every right to nullify as the statute never had legal standing. NO ONE, not congress , not the president, not SCOTUS has the authority to enforce an unconstitutional ruling.
The provisions of the Constitution and a conflicting federal ruling cannot coexist. If they are both present the Constitution must govern and the federal ruling be dismissed. Again, when you refer to Am Jur 2nd 256, the fact that the unconstitutional “law” was on the books is irrelevant. Since it conflicted with the constitution it was null and void from the moment of inception.
Robert Lyons-you ask a good question but I think that the point that is missed is the understanding of what an insurgency is, how it is conducted, and what it entails. To begin with I want to be clear…NO SANE person wants a show down. It is a terrible Ida and bad for everyone involved. With that said however, please understand that if this thing ever came to a head, governmental forces could be facing numerous small groups, many with significant military experience. The combination of non-linear operations, popular support, compromise/destruction of lines of supply/communication, ambushes, raids, etc serve to wear down and restrict freedom of movement of a larger superior force. Too many people have the idea that they are a resistance force of one, holed up in their house. There are enough however that understand what would need to be done, how to do it, and their abilities/concerns should not be lightly dismissed .
Right but it has to be first determined to be unconstitutional and that is up to the SCOTUS
Jordan, to begin with you would have to get buy in from the military. If they felt the action was unconstitutional they may very well not comply. But for arguments sake let’s say that did happen . Have you considered the huge number of people in the civilian community with military experience and skill sets to match ? Interdiction of logistics, routes of travel , mobility/ counter-mobility, IEDs, EFPs, operations , comms , etc….all this understanding is out there and is NOT insignificant
Kenneth, easy. For the Feds to operate in a state they need road networks and logistics ( fuel, food, electricity, etc). The state simply denies those. If they want to play hardball then the state police and national guard move in and arrest them , that’s how