Possibly a nullifying law forfederal gun legislation

[joshua74133]

Magpul would have to open a office in Oklahoma in order for us to buy 30rd mags I THINK lol

 

[vooduchikn]

If those a$$holes can ignore the constitution in the first place then why can't the states ignore the supremacy clause? That's the pandoras box they are opening.

Haven't states done this already by legalizing MJ contrary to Federal law?

 

[XDnOK]

Haven't states done this already by legalizing MJ contrary to Federal law?

Thats one is a head scratcher but I think if enough states show Obama Bin Laden the finger he just might close his mouth long enough to have a thought......

 

[Werewolf]

I have better questions. If you defend yourself and kill them while they are in commission of a felony in your state will any survivors within their posse be charged with their death? Will you not be tried because you were defending yourself in the commission of a felony against you where it would be reasonable to believe they would harm you? I mean, they'd have guns and **** right?

WILL THEY?

Inquiring minds want to know.

This would be a good reason to stand your ground and fight off any attempt at gun grabbing. Your actions would be justified under current OK law assuming they pass this making it a felony to try and attempt to take your guns away.

Emphasis mine

Except for one thing. When Federal and State law conflict the constitution states Federal law will take precedence.

I'd say it was that simple but it really isn't. The 10th is pretty clear that powers not specifically delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states. Gun law was not delegated to the feds in any way shape or means except for one thing: The 2nd demands that the feds not infring a citizen's RKBA.

Which means that someone's got to be a test case and the case must end up in SCOTUS and be ruled on based on the 10th. IMO SCOTUS is a bunch of status quo anti boat rockers employed by the feds who never ever give power grabbed by the feds back to the states (at least not that I'm aware of).

So as another poster mentioned any law enacted as mentioned by the OP will be little more than symbolic.

 

[Dale00]

Before it ever got to the stage you guys are describing, the feds would shut off all highway funds and other federal money to which the state is addicted.

 

[dennishoddy]

I think the Supremacy Clause will prevent these from kicking in, or being more than symbolic. But, if enough states did it, and those states were more blue than red, that might knock some sense into the DNC/DNP...maybe. Unless berry's goal is to let things go to **** so he can declare marshal law.

We need a lawyer to chime in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

they didn't care during the presidential elections.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Late last night I sent the following email to my state senator (Holt) and representative (Echols). Because it was late and I'd had a long day some of the syntax wasn't quite what it should've been. My bad...

In light of the recent events, I would like to raise a point of consideration in the event the Oklahoma state legislature moves forward with legislation protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

The word "arms" in the Second Amendment is critical in the current debate. In many pieces of legislation introduced in other state legislatures and assemblies to support the right to keep or bear arms, (or to restrict the right), I am hard pressed to find the word "arms". The term "firearm(s)" and/or "weapon(s)" is used most often, neither of which is used in the text of the Second Amendment. And thus, theoretically, legislation purported to support the right to keep and bear "arms" would in effect by useless. And legislation purported to infringe on "firearms & weapons" would be effective.

By using the term "arms" in place of the common terms "firearms & weapons" in legislation designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms, such legislation is in complete accord with the Second Amendment in protecting the right to keep and bear "arms". Any legislation thereafter that seeks to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms that uses the terms "firearms & weapons" would be null and void as they would not be describing that which the Second Amendment protects from infringement... "arms".

I encourage you therefore to consider this point when introducing or supporting any legislation that seeks to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Although it many seem a matter of semantics, it is quite important in acknowledging that words in the English language, especially in the arena of legal terminology, unequivocally protect our rights from infringement by government. The Second Amendment protects from infringement upon "arms". It is essential in my opinion that legislation use the exact same term of "arms" in order to protect the right.

His response...

Thank you very much for your email. Second Amendment protection is of the utmost importance to me and I will be co-authoring at least one major piece of legislation regarding it that will be offered by Representative Dan Fisher. While I have studied the issue, I have never thought about the exact issue you have raised. I think you are completely correct. Semantics do matter and as a legislator I should strive to be as exact as possible.

I am very grateful for all constituent contact, but this particular email was one of the most helpful I have received. I will take this advise into consideration when making drafting decisions on all future second amendment issues. Thank you for the thoughts.

If you ever have any further questions or concerns of any kind, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Representative Jon Echols

As for the Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The bold words in red above are the key to understanding this clause. What it means is that only laws that are made in accord with the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8 are supreme. Any law that is not made in "pursuance thereof" of those specific, listed, enumerated powers are null and void as per the 9th & 10th Amendments. The ratifying debates of the original states bear this fact out. Too many of you take what you hear for gospel and believe the SCOTUS has the final say. It doesn't. It only has jurisdiction on those powers enumerated. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolution by Jefferson and Madison state that it is the States that have the final say on matters as it was the States that created the central government.

But I digress. Most folks are unwilling to educate themselves and take to heart what others tell them, even if that information is incorrect.

I said it before... the US Constitution is dead. You're all witnessing the inevitable rot of it's decay. Unfortunate but this is the new reality.

 

[Swapwap]

The only thing that could really stop his political maneuvering is succession from the United States and that my friend isn't going to happen. The Feds control the money supply therefore control the states. Sure like minded politicians who agree with us will stand and defend our rights to the best of their ability but it is clear they will not impeach him, not succeed from there union, and will not fight him for what it right as they compromise far too often You can't depend on the Supreme Court as they have demonstrated with obamacare that they are willing to allow the Feds to do whatever they want. All we can do in my humble opinion is never, ever register our guns and invest heavily in lead and brass ( bedore they take that away too ) as we band together to get a real conservative on the GOP ticket 3 1/2 years from now if we can make it that long.

 

[daddy-o]

Just thought I would share the email I received from my state rep. I would highly recommend all of you writing your state reps. They need to know our feelings.



Thank you so much for this email. Thank you also for your support in the past and present.

I can assure you that you and I are on the same page with this issue. Being a staunch supporter and member of the NRA, the idea to control guns with more federal gun laws are a joke. People kill people…not guns. We are looking at other states and states like Wyoming that will further protect our 2nd amendment rights. Furthermore, we need to protect the entire constitution from the current President and many folks in his party. I apologize for the political talk there but that is how I feel.

Your points are 100% valid. My folks are in the same boat as they live out of town and by the time law enforcement arrives, its over.

We will push back as a state regarding the feds…I promise you that. There are bills coming just to do that!

Appreciate you Mark and always feel free to call or email me. We are in good shape here in OKLA but we need to invoke the 10th amendment against the Fed. Govt should they try to shove this down our throat.

Thanks again sir.

Rep. Mike Sanders, District 59
Assistant Majority Whip
2300 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Phone: 405-557-7407 ext. 407
Fax: 405-962-7871
[email protected]

 

[freewookie]

Add MO to the list.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co...il-time-for-feds-violating-the-2nd-amendment/