3rd State Declares Sovereignty From BATFE - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37

Thread: 3rd State Declares Sovereignty From BATFE

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek Mi
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by benjammin View Post
    Dude, I've repeatedly been all over Schauer, Levin and Stabenow over all this gun-related crap they keep trying, the best I ever get is a form letter saying "how concerned" they are about my views. Hopefully your rep is a little more attentive to his/her constituents, but mine just sits there and wastes my money. All the local demorats voted Schauer in after his predecessor (Wahlberg) actually voted AGAINST the first bailout! I congratulated him for that and voted for him, but we (sane people) are outnumbered in this area.
    Mark voted pro gun when pressured, as to the rest along with Mark they are at the federal level, this is state stuff, contact your local rep, go to his office and have a sit down like I did.....
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century
    "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out!" Father John Corapi.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    I don't get it. Where was the problem? Right now, there's an activity that's wholly prohibitted, therefore, no one is doing it legally. They didn't want to make something legal because no one was doing it legally at the time?
    There was no one to push it so it got put on the back burner. Any time a bill in introduced unless there is some group to push it to the top it will not get acted on. Hundreds of bills are introduce every term and only a few ever even get a committee hearing. Most are either the pet project of some representative or to appease one person or group. Out of 10 gun related bills so far this term only 2 have even made it to a committee hearing and they only have 2 more weeks to work on them. One of the two only involves one county and the other was a watered down verion of a different bill.

    If you want a bill to even get looked at you better have a good lobbyist such as the NRA working on it and be friends with the committe chairman and head of the House and Senate. Otherwise you are wasting your time which is exactly what happened in this case.

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by CathyInBlue View Post
    ...Chapter 5. Prohibited Instruments of Violence...
    Should read the State of Indiana's Infringements of their residents UNALIENABLE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS...

    You can not read any more into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...

    Any Class/Type of Firearm, Cannon, Bazooka, Machine Gun, Tank etc, is protected by the Second Amendment...



    What we as citizens need to do is tirelessly reiterate this ad nauseum to our Federal, State, County, City and other Municipality Representatives, and provide them with Chapter and Verse of our history and quotes of our founding fathers, that believed that without the Unabridged Second Amendment, the rest have no value and are unenforceable...

    “When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.” - Thomas Jefferson

    "Its time we started giving the Second Amendment the same attention we give the First Amendment" - Governor Mike Huckabee

  5. #14
    Pennsylvania and Oklahoma joins 19 other states and counting passing 10th Amendment Sovereignty...
    YouTube - Rohrer: 10th Amendment Clearly Defines State Powers

    YouTube - GlenBeck: NH Sovereignty - over 20 states aboard now! Civil War?!

    http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view?bill=HCR6&year=2009

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...illnumber=HCR6

    ...That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:...
    VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
    That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and
    That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.
    Full Text of N.H. Bill...
    http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view?bill=HCR6&year=2009

  6. #15
    I was excited about Montana's bill, till I actually read it...

    The Montana bill is a bust, it totally defeats the purpose...
    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm

    E.G.:
    Section 5. Exceptions. [Section 4] does not apply to:
    ...
    (4) a firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device
    .
    ..

    The problem with the Montana exclusion is it, defeats the entire purpose of the bill... "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", period, end of story... The Second amendment does not say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" except if your zip code is x, your standing at y or the type/class of firearm you have or desire to have is z.

    The people in Montana need to write their governor and representatives, and tell them to amend this b.s. that they sold them out on... either the 2nd and 10th amendments matter or they don't; no federal gun laws and no infringements on the second amendment by the states or the federal government period..

    AND the rest of us need to make sure NO MORE MONTANA versions get passed...

  7. #16
    I'm not sure it totally defeats the purpose, just the purpose we all got our hopes up for. While firearms are the specific item named in the bill, I think the broader purpose is to start a fight with the federal government over states rights. There will be some case that makes it to the SCOTUS, and when this new law is upheld, It will open up the floodgates for all sorts of states-rights affirmation (a.k.a. federal deregulation). Firearms were just a good thing to start with.

    I will say this, the Montana legislature has shown itself to have far less balls than I thought and hoped it did.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    I'm not sure it totally defeats the purpose, just the purpose we all got our hopes up for. While firearms are the specific item named in the bill, I think the broader purpose is to start a fight with the federal government over states rights. There will be some case that makes it to the SCOTUS, and when this new law is upheld, It will open up the floodgates for all sorts of states-rights affirmation (a.k.a. federal deregulation). Firearms were just a good thing to start with.

    I will say this, the Montana legislature has shown itself to have far less balls than I thought and hoped it did.
    Again, the problem is IF the Montana bill is the one that goes before SCOTUS, we have already lost, because they already conceded, that the Federal Government and or State Government can Infringe States & Citizens Rights and upon the Second Amendment, 10th or any others for that matter...
    Give them an inch they will take a mile, if we say that they can regulate one, then they can use that to justify regulating (OR BAN) them all...

    Look at what they have been doing with that stinking Interstate Commerce Clause, the most misconstrued and abused statement in the Constitution by Congress and SCOTUS...

    I contend either the Constitution maters or it does not, IF it does not then its time for a NEW DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE...

  9. #18
    I agree, and I actually, have been thinking for the last couple days now... Is this even the right fight? I'm all for states rights, but firearms are addressed in the U.S. constitution. I don't even consider them a state right. They are a human right.

    Let's suppose for a moment that the MT bill was what we thought it would be, all inclusive, and was later upheld by SCOTUS. That is to say that the state has the right to regulate firearms anyway it saw fit. Out in the mountain west that wouldn't be all that bad. But then a place like NY comes in and says "Well if it's a state right, we have the right to ban all firearms."

    Kinda the same "give an inch, take a mile" result, just a different route.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  10. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    I agree, and I actually, have been thinking for the last couple days now... Is this even the right fight? I'm all for states rights, but firearms are addressed in the U.S. constitution. I don't even consider them a state right. They are a human right.

    Let's suppose for a moment that the MT bill was what we thought it would be, all inclusive, and was later upheld by SCOTUS. That is to say that the state has the right to regulate firearms anyway it saw fit. Out in the mountain west that wouldn't be all that bad. But then a place like NY comes in and says "Well if it's a state right, we have the right to ban all firearms."

    Kinda the same "give an inch, take a mile" result, just a different route.
    You are exactly right, its not whether or not the States have a right to decide Second Amendment rights; its two-fold:
    1. Federal Government can not pass firearm laws...
    2. Nor can the States...

    Because the Constitution does not grant the Unalienable Right To Keep and Bear Arms, it Reaffirms Its Pre-Existence and Protects it from Infringement...

    Thus The Second Amendment Protects & Reaffirms, The Preexisting, Unalienable Right to protect your life, that of your friends, family, neighbors, etc., from all threats foreign or domestic, using equal or greater force then may be brought against you, including but not limited to the Tyranny of our own Government...
    Any where, Any Place, Any Time...

    We need to restore this country back to the Jefferson/Madison Constitution...

    Its ludicrous to think that our founding fathers went to war with the British because they tried to take their assault weapons (Cannons) and powder & ball (ammunition), but would allow our own Federal or State Government to disarm or otherwise limit our ability to resist the very tyranny they fought against; and stated very clearly that the Second Amendment was the only deterrent from the Tyranny of our own Government; and without the Second Amendment all others, were unenforceable and had no meaning...

    You simply can not read any more into "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

    The Unabridged Second Amendment

  11. #20
    Since the law applies only to those guns that are made and kept in Montana, its impact is limited. The state is home to just a handful of specialty gun makers, known for recreating rifles used to settle the West, and most of their customers are out-of-state.
    I am still trying to figure out what this act does other than posturing and trying to make the legislatures look like they are doing something. Who is going to take this to the SCOTUS and on what basis? Until someone like Remington or Winchester actually sets up a plant in Montana this whole deal is nothing but hot air. Same way with the bill in SC and the other states, right now it is simply a solution in search of a problem.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast