Response to federal gun laws.....

I was just thinking about situations like sanctuary cities and places where weed is legal despite federal law and then wondered what would happen should Democrats be successful in getting more pointless gun legislation like that Brady Bill passed again. Why not just tell the federal government that it isn't going to happen?

Why not contact state officials and urge them to pass something like a civil rights act that states that no law the federal government passes that infringes on the rights of <insert state name> residents will be enforced. So even if stuff like hate speech laws or gun laws are passed they will not be enforced?

Nap said:

I was just thinking about situations like sanctuary cities and places where weed is legal despite federal law and then wondered what would happen should Democrats be successful in getting more pointless gun legislation like that Brady Bill passed again. Why not just tell the federal government that it isn't going to happen?

Why not contact state officials and urge them to pass something like a civil rights act that states that no law the federal government passes that infringes on the rights of <insert state name> residents will be enforced. So even if stuff like hate speech laws or gun laws are passed they will not be enforced?

Click to expand...

States passing laws to thumb their nose at federal anti-2nd amendment laws won't stop the federal government from enforcing anti-2nd amendment laws. The only reason the federal government is not enforcing federal laws against illegal immigration and marijuana is because it doesn't want to. When states first enacted medical marijuana laws the feds still went after them.'I'm Going To Prison For Working At A Pot Shop That Was Legal In My State' | HuffPost States enacting laws thumbing their noses at federal laws just means they won't cooperate with the feds when it comes to those laws, it doesn't stop the feds from enforcing federal law.

jamesrage said:

States passing laws to thumb their nose at federal anti-2nd amendment laws won't stop the federal government from enforcing anti-2nd amendment laws. The only reason the federal government is not enforcing federal laws against illegal immigration and marijuana is because it doesn't want to. When states first enacted medical marijuana laws the feds still went after them.'I'm Going To Prison For Working At A Pot Shop That Was Legal In My State' | HuffPost States enacting laws thumbing their noses at federal laws just means they won't cooperate with the feds when it comes to those laws, it doesn't stop the feds from enforcing federal law.

Click to expand...

True, it was mainly just wishful thinking on my part. I was just curious of what kind of blocks the States could do to prevent the Federal government from attacking the rights of it's people.

Nap said:

True, it was mainly just wishful thinking on my part. I was just curious of what kind of blocks the States could do to prevent the Federal government from attacking the rights of it's people.

Click to expand...

Secession, or have your states citizens play with fire by being in violation of federal law, but not offing state assets for a federal investigation are about all there is. It is imperative to elect representatives that you believe in, or advocate for your representatives in areas they have no chance.

Nap said:

True, it was mainly just wishful thinking on my part. I was just curious of what kind of blocks the States could do to prevent the Federal government from attacking the rights of it's people.

Click to expand...

Leave and stop taking federal money.

Nap said:

I was just thinking about situations like sanctuary cities and places where weed is legal despite federal law and then wondered what would happen should Democrats be successful in getting more pointless gun legislation like that Brady Bill passed again. Why not just tell the federal government that it isn't going to happen?

Why not contact state officials and urge them to pass something like a civil rights act that states that no law the federal government passes that infringes on the rights of <insert state name> residents will be enforced. So even if stuff like hate speech laws or gun laws are passed they will not be enforced?

Click to expand...

Neither of the federal laws that you mention are constitutionally protected, but as for why states exercise their own powers on said matters, I suggest you read the 10th amendment.

The partisan divide is becoming so large that eventually secession will be a necessity. I hope that if it comes to that I am long gone though because I doubt that will be a fun time.

jet57 said:

Neither of the federal laws that you mention are constitutionally protected, but as for why states exercise their own powers on said matters, I suggest you read the 10th amendment.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I am not against sanctuary cities or weed. Actually, I believe all drugs should be legal for adults. I'm wondering how much a State could prevent the Federal government from enforcing stuff like gun laws.

jet57 said:

Neither of the federal laws that you mention are constitutionally protected, but as for why states exercise their own powers on said matters, I suggest you read the 10th amendment.

Click to expand...

if the tenth amendment was really enforced, FDR and his entire administration would have been hung for treason

Nap said:

Don't get me wrong I am not against sanctuary cities or weed. Actually, I believe all drugs should be legal for adults. I'm wondering how much a State could prevent the Federal government from enforcing stuff like gun laws.

Click to expand...

Montana-if memory serves me, passed a law or amendment saying guns made in that state are presumed (if found in Montana) not to have moved in interstate commerce which is a valid way of preventing federal intrusion. Of course statist federal law makers will pretend that since such weapons can "affect interstate commerce" (one of the glaring dishonesties of the anti-consitutitonal FDR Regime) and claim federal anti 2nd amendment intrusions can still be implemented. I hope several states tell the ATF to go screw itself and create a constitutional crisis which will force the 9 USSC justices to decide how to deal with the abomination that the FDR regime created in terms of a carte blanche power for congress. The lopez v USA decision was a slight bitch slap of the FDR nonsense. More is needed, much more. The biggest problem is that a correct interpretation of the commerce clause would get rid of the following laws and institutions that too many Americans and corporations have become dependent upon

1) social security

2) Medicare

3) Title VII

4) Title IX

among others