Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I live in Idaho I was very pleased to see this. I read about it in the paper earlier today. I knew it was in the works and all it needed was signed into law.

Then on the other hand we have Mike Simpson and that good for nothing rino voted to keep up the N.S.A. spy program. These damn career politicians make me sick. Play along to get along.

We need some people with some real balls. Instead of these neutered has-beens .

I was making this as an ETA, but decided to make a full post of this in regards to the Feds and States law discussed in here.

ETA - In regards to the Feds and the assumption from that the Feds have the last say, (not speaking to anyone in particular in this ETA btw) take this example..... look at Felons and their right to own guns. It's generally assumed that felons cannot own firearms....but that's a misconception. Many states have "deferred adjudication", or "adjudication withheld", etc.... In many states, someone who received a "deferred sentence", for a felony, isn't actually considered a convicted felon, even though the crime committed was a felony. (assuming the sentence was successfully completed)

So....under state laws, these guys have not lost their gun rights, and also the Feds recognize that as well. (Getting a CHL is harder though). Here's an excerpt from the ATF website, under their Domestic Violence faq, although it also applies to felonies.

www.atf.gov...-before-judgement

What is a conviction is determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held. If the State law where the proceedings were held does not consider probation before judgment or deferred adjudication to be a conviction, the person would not be subject to the disability.

Colorado, Texas, and Oklahoma have all labeled these sentences "deferred adjudication/or judgment". (many other States have similar language...for example, Florida has "Adjudication Withheld"...almost exactly the same as "deferred") All 3 states share the near exact same language in their law, but here's' what Ok. Bureau of Investigation's says. (I have this site bookmarked, so it's easiest access to share).

www.ok.gov...

The Brady Act is a federal law that regulates firearms purchases nationwide. Named for Press Secretary Jim Brady, who sustained a gunshot wound to the head during an assassination attempt of President Reagan, the core of the Act is to impose up to a 3-day waiting period for gun purchases while a criminal records check is conducted. Persons with firearms “disabilities” will not be allowed to purchase a handgun at all. In fact, the Brady Act criminalizes selling, possessing, shipping, receiving, transporting or transferring firearms for persons with firearms disabilities. The Brady Act firearms disabilities include:

•felons
•persons under indictment for, or charged with a felony
•persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence

And there's other disabilities included, but those are the most common ones.

Oklahoma Self-Defense Act licenses issued between May 16, 1996 and November 30, 1998 qualify as an alternative to conducting a Brady Act check when purchasing a weapon.

Long story short (in the case of Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado), if you've got a "deferred" arrest and charge, even if it's a felony....you still have your civil rights,

Under Oklahoma law, any completed deferred sentence for a domestic violence crime or felony is NOT a conviction.

reply to post by spooky24


Well, it affected the constitutional rights, would it not affect the states? If they could make laws circumventing our constitution the states don't meant squat now, the precedent is set.

Sremmos80
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

But at the end of the day if the feds really want to ignore that, they are still able to correct?

This is just the Governor stating that state resources will not be used to enforce any new laws right?

edit on ndSat, 22 Mar 2014 19:15:06 -0500America/Chicago320140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

Well as I understood Missouri's new law, any federal agent, worker or officer from any federal agency trying to enforce any type federal law bill or writ dealing specifically with confiscation of assault rifles, handguns or any other kind of firearms or accessories including but not limited to magazines are subject to state prosecution and detainment.

The Sheriffs won't, they don't want to end up shot or dead.

They can try, but the fed won't be able to confiscate all the firearms. There will be a lot of shooting. They can't go against the Constitution. They'll start another Civil War.

They can't and won't take the guns, just won't happen. The gun lobby is pretty big.
Troy Lawson

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I consider such fingers in the dike . . .

HOWEVER I VIGOROUSLY APPLAUD SUCH ACTS AND EFFORTS.

May freedom long wave . . . at least as long as possible in the globalist rush to Armageddon and hell.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Ugh, no state law can overrule a federal law, in exchange states are given huge leeway in governing themselves. It's how America works ppl, this is just idiotic posturing from republican law makers.

No ones coming for ur guns, there is no 2nd amendment boogy man, the US citizens are the highest armed citizens in the world, that's not gonna change.

GokuVsSuperman0
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

Ugh, no state law can overrule a federal law, in exchange states are given huge leeway in governing themselves. It's how America works ppl, this is just idiotic posturing from republican law makers.

No ones coming for ur guns, there is no 2nd amendment boogy man, the US citizens are the highest armed citizens in the world, that's not gonna change.

Well hell, when did "posture" become a bad thing?

"highest" armed citizens? Washington? Colorado?

I'm glad they can't ever take them away. When they ask me why?...I'll say because GokuVsSuperman said you couldn't.

Now don't go all super saiyan on me now......

Now thats being proactive! "Any future gun laws" -- Thats how you beat tyranny in your neck of the woods, being proactive.

The Founding Fathers were proactive. Proactive enough to create for us with the Bill of Rights. They knew tyranny would squeeze through every little crack in liberty it could possibly locate.

Evil will never rest, so neither can we.

Love it, Idaho! Kick ass!

Snarl

Sremmos80
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

But at the end of the day if the feds really want to ignore that, they are still able to correct?

This is just the Governor stating that state resources will not be used to enforce any new laws right?

edit on ndSat, 22 Mar 2014 19:15:06 -0500America/Chicago320140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

Pretty much. The Feds have the Supremacy Clause working on their side and the DHS to bust down your doors if they want to.

The supremacy clause only pertains to laws where the federal government is given specific allowance to pass laws. It was designed to prevent states from passing legislation where the Fed was given specific powers when they didn't like the laws passed.

Anything pertaining to the bill of rights is not a nullification but is instead a verification of existing rights and the supremacy clause has no bearing on it.

Jaden

This legislation adds to the "Idaho House approves bill to make gun confiscation a criminal offense" -2013

The Idaho House has approved a measure that makes it a misdemeanor for government and law officials to enforce any new federal firearms laws including bans and registrations.

H.B. 219, or the "Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act," approved Monday 55 – 13, could bring fines of up to $1,000 and a year jail time to any local officials who engage in confiscation, including assistance in such acts with any federal agents.

- Source

Yeah, I remember when states and cities did the same for the Patriot Act because it infringes on civil liberties. None of it stopped the NSA from stealing our privacy.