States Fighting Back Against Fed Gun Control

May 8, 2009
By

Bill Would Prevent Federal Government from Regulating Firearms in TN (includes video)

Montana Governor Signs New Gun Law

Texas To Test Sovereignty: Exempt Firearms from Feds

Gun rights
Trend is running gun-owners’ way

7 Responses to States Fighting Back Against Fed Gun Control

  1. PamH1955 on May 9, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    OMG I heard about this yesterday. The story was about Montana. I sent and email to glenn beck and here is a copy of it:

    I have been so depressed about the state of our country and out you come with this story about Montana and their brilliant legislation. I have a huge amount of hope that this will work. And the flip side is that I’m terrified that it won’t. Here is my take on the situation. WHY FREEKING GUNS. Im a 2nd amendment supporter as well, but why not TOMATOES. Tomatoes grown in the state of washington and consumed in the state of washington shall not be subject to any federal regulations…..Tomatoes…how could the supreme court deny the measly tomato its right to be regulated by each individual state….so long as it never crosses state lines! Silly — yes, but a I think there is a point to made there for those who are afraid of guns. People could hear the message regardless of their political affiliation if they had only picked TOMATOES!!!!!

    Anyway if anyone knows anyway I can, from the state of Washington, do anything to promote the cases I am listening :-)

  2. Tracy R Twyman on May 9, 2009 at 7:47 pm

    Why guns? Because Obama’s about to sign us into an international treaty that criminalizes reloading your weapon, and several other aspects of actually using a gun, thus making guns illegal for all practical purposes. The 2nd Amendment exists specifically to support the right of the people to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. The people who are in full alert about this right now are not all militia people. Because no one’s really envisioning a civil war or shootout with the government. There’s no need for that. The thing is, as long as they still know that the citizenry are armed, there is a certain implied limit to how tyrannical they will become. The government doesn’t want to have a bloody shootout anymore than anyone else does. But if they could bloodlessly disarm us first, it would be much easier afterwards to impose whatever sort of conditions they wish without fear of resistance. This is a crucial threshold that we must not let pass.

  3. wermyapl on May 9, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Actually the treaty would ban reloading of spent ammo casings as “explosives manufacturing,” not reloading the gun itself.

    Pam, one of two things will happen with the MT case. Because the legislature has passed it, and the governor has signed it, it is already law. No one can stop that now. The only way the Feds can over rule it is by taking it to the SCOTUS. The case that will be made by MT is that weapons manufactured, sold and used within the state do not fall under interstate commerce which is regulated by congress. I’m not sure how the Feds will argue their case, but most predictions I’ve seen say that the current SCOTUS would probably support MT by a vote of 6-3 or 5-4.

    If they choose to rule in favor of MT and to follow the constitution, it would in effect, roll back a couple generations of the progressive D and R agenda that has bankrupted the country and led to social division and corruption.

    If the SCOTUS rules in favor of the Feds, be afraid, be very very afraid. In that case MT has a couple of options, either to accept defeat and move on, or to refuse to accept the verdict as illegitimate and to pass a law that makes it illegal to enforce Federal gun laws in the state, which would lead to the state arresting any Federal officers trying to enforce Federal laws.

    At that point the Feds will start cutting funds to the state or something equally threatening and the ball will be in MT’s court again. Do they cave or do they press on? We’ll see. But, if it gets to this point, it’s dangerously close to the situation we had around 1860.

  4. PamH1955 on May 9, 2009 at 10:57 pm

    No I fully understand the how the *&%^$# feds got so intangled in our state business and am familiar with the interstate trade angle (however freeking rediculous it is). And I agree about this being important…perhaps the most important case in the last 20 years! And yes Tracy I really do “understand” why guns, my point was that if a precident was made (using the same format) for tomatoes or tennis shoes or anything else other than guns it would help every other similar case that came down the line. Our law is built on predcident, each and every bit of it. I believe that the only time the courts can circumvent a bulk of set precident is through a process called stare decisis. And I think that the last time it was used was to overrule segregation. SO…. if we had rulings about not messing with my tomatoes that say in the state of Washington and not messing with the tennis shoes Nike produces, and stay in the state of Oregon when the gun issue came up they would be hard pressed to rule against it. I am very interested if someone finds a flaw in this logic. Thanks for a great discussion.

  5. Sofia Baker on July 8, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    i think that gun control should always be imposed at all times to reduce violence.”‘,

  6. wermyapl on July 9, 2010 at 2:06 am

    @ Sofia

    Every statistic shows that guns lead to less violence. Besides I have a natural born right to bear arms that shall not be infringed regardless of your beliefs. You can not take that away no matter how frightened and vulnerable you feel. Why does the tyrannical government get a monopoly on guns?

  7. Evelyn Reed on September 8, 2010 at 11:55 am

    i always thought that gun control should be mandatory in all places.`;

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

New Paperback Edition!

Login Using Facebook!




Forgot?

Listen to our podcast!

Our Latest YouTube Favorites

No matching videos

Discover the Mysteries of the Federal Reserve

Visit Our Sponsors

Mary Magdalene: Bride of Jesus? Royal Princess? Sacred Prostitute?

Cthulhu and Dagon: Fallen Angels? Kings of Atlantis?

Satanic Black Masses in the Catholic Church!

Visit Our Sponors

PDX FRIENDS

Visit Our Sponsors

Visit Our Sponors