Governor Stitt Signs the Bill: Oklahoma is now a 2A Sanctuary

[El Pablo]

Arresting feds for enforcing federal laws won’t work, for those of you that think that’s what this is for.

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerunderStateLaw.html

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

My understanding is it covers any unconstitutional 2A laws AFTER the 1934and 1968 acts. Those are still in play. Pretty sure I heard that from Don Spencer?

 

[TedKennedy]

My understanding is it covers any unconstitutional 2A laws AFTER the 1934and 1968 acts. Those are still in play. Pretty sure I heard that from Don Spencer?

That was my understanding as well. The wording doesn't really indicate that however.

 

[trekrok]

I read the preemption paragraphs to mean if they try to amend NFA or GCA to include any additional items or criteria, it would not be protected by this act. Meaning Oklahoma will enforce those two acts as they are today but will not enforce any future amendments to them. I would have to read other bills with similar wording that have precedent attached to them to see how the courts typically interpret that phrasing though.

This was my reading of it too. Those acts preempt ours I think.

I wish it at least paid lip service to registration too. Before an organized buy-back or confiscation could happen, they'd need to know who has them. I see this as more advertising our stance on the 2nd, rather than anything with actual teeth. But, rather have the Act than not.

 

[Reed4ammo]

But the King said no amendments are absolute...

 

[wawazat]

But the King said no amendments are absolute...

Then why don't we start with the 16th?

 

[trekrok]

But the King said no amendments are absolute...

Not that many years ago that statement alone would have garnered serious attention from a good chunk of the population.

 

[JR777]

My understanding is it covers any unconstitutional 2A laws AFTER the 1934and 1968 acts. Those are still in play. Pretty sure I heard that from Don Spencer?

1. Any regulation of arms and ammunition, pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934, prohibited or regulated on or after the effective date of this act;

I read it to include the existing NFA laws, but I'm not a lawyer.

Pretty weak sauce if you're right though. If they're not going to go after existing infringements then they're just jerking us off by letting us think they might resist future ones. If they're going to let the previous ones stand, they have no basis for preempting future ones.

 

[trekrok]

1. Any regulation of arms and ammunition, pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934, prohibited or regulated on or after the effective date of this act;

I read it to include the existing NFA laws, but I'm not a lawyer.

Pretty weak sauce if you're right though. If they're not going to go after existing infringements then they're just jerking us off by letting us think they might resist future ones. If they're going to let the previous ones stand, they have no basis for preempting future ones.

It seems it could have been written more clearly, but I think this part "...on or after the effective date of this act;" is referring to our act, not the NFA. I'd be impressed if they intended to supplant the NFA, but I doubt anyone is sticking their head up that high..

 

[MacFromOK]

It seems it could have been written more clearly, but I think this part "...on or after the effective date of this act;" is referring to our act, not the NFA. I'd be impressed if they intended to supplant the NFA, but I doubt anyone is sticking their head up that high..

That's my understanding as well. The phrase "on or after the effective date of this act" is important.

Still NOT a lawyer...