Kentucky bans cities from banning firearms

reply to post by ANOK


Sadly, of that I have no doubt.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
Sure... a limp wristed Englishman spelling it out for me.

Please read an informative amount of my previous posts.

Oh can't resist throwing in an insult eh? Well this "limp wristed" Englishman served for six years in your Navy and is living with Gulf War Illness.

I'm not the one who is confused here.

political grandstanding

remember this next election !!

forget the economy, roads, bridges and jobs !!!

you got yer guns !!!!

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Aaaaaand then there's nullification.

Aaaaand why not explain what that is?

I'll do it for you I guess.

The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it...

...The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts...

Nullification (U.S. Constitution)

An Englishman explaining to Americans their own constitution, gotta love it.

Sure... a limp wristed Englishman spelling it out for me.

Please read an informative amount of my previous posts.


You seem to be confused as to the temperature of the times. The pillars of many things previously untested are currently being tested. Societies and countries typically don't set precedences.......... til they do.

edit on 19-1-2013 by 11235813213455 because: (no reason given)

Hey Mr. think's he know's everything but don't know peanuts..You must read up on the Supremacy Clause.The Clause can hold true with implied responsibilty.But it does not apply where deemed unconstitutional.Your references to California do not adress constitutional rights.So unless the constitution is changed it does not apply.

Read before you speak.your opinion is not law.

litigation.findlaw.com... e-supremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-of-preemption.html

reply to post by 11235813213455


Sorry replied to wrong poster.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Sorry replied to wrong poster.

Ha! No worries brother.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


You mean this?...

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

Supremacy Clause

BTW your link doesn't work.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by beezzer
Well, since it is still Constitutional to "bear arms" then the feds don't have a shot (pardon the pun) at getting their way.

It's also in the Constitution that states have rights.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yet the feds can still supersede state law when laws conflict. That is why they can raid cannabis dispensaries.
The same thing would happen with gun control, they would find excuses to raid and confiscate guns.

The supremacy clause can apply to protect ceratin rights.But it cannot apply where it contradicts the constitution. In the use of marijuana laws in California .The Feds moved under implied consent.Not against rights protected by the Constitution.If the law is unconstitutional the clause does not apply.So unless the Constitution is changed it won't apply.A new law or bill or excutive order doesn't change the Constitution.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
The supremacy clause can apply to protect ceratin rights.But it cannot apply where it contradicts the constitution. In the use of marijuana laws in California .The Feds moved under implied consent.Not against rights protected by the Constitution.If the law is unconstitutional the clause does not apply.So unless the Constitution is changed it won't apply. A new law or bill or excutive order doesn't change the Constitution.

Not saying you're wrong but please point out where it says that.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]...

...The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[2]...

...As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt", that state law:

Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

en.wikipedia.org...

The Feds are not going to deny you the right to bear arms, they can enforce a ban on certain weapons and will trump state law..

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

You mean this?...

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

Supremacy Clause

BTW your link doesn't work.

edit on 1/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification, is the legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional or exceeds Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[2]

Yep, that is just what I meant.BTW you should read past the first paragraph.Or you run the risk of not knowing what you are talking about.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


I did, I was editing my post when you were replying to it. Please take another look. Feds are not going to take away your right to bear arms. They do have the legal right to ban certain weapons.

And just because you have the right to bear arms it doesn't mean they can't restrict or even ban gun sales. You would still have the right to bear arms by the constitution, you just wouldn't be able to buy one.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
The supremacy clause can apply to protect ceratin rights.But it cannot apply where it contradicts the constitution. In the use of marijuana laws in California .The Feds moved under implied consent.Not against rights protected by the Constitution.If the law is unconstitutional the clause does not apply.So unless the Constitution is changed it won't apply. A new law or bill or excutive order doesn't change the Constitution.

Not saying you're wrong but please point out where it says that.

The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]...

...The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[2]...

...As the Supreme Court stated in Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), a federal law that conflicts with a state law will trump, or "preempt", that state law:

Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)

en.wikipedia.org...

The Feds are not going to deny you the right to bear arms, they can enforce a ban on certain weapons and will trump state law..

edit on 1/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Ok if it is unconstitutional it can not apply.The states can take it to federal court and challenge it.It is not the law of the land.

reply to post by ANOK


A lot easier to push around a state like cali. I don't think it will be so easy to do that with KY. At least from my observations.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
Ok if it is unconstitutional it can not apply.The states can take it to federal court and challenge it.It is not the law of the land.

Does the constitution give people the right to manufacture and sell weapons?

Originally posted by TKDRL
A lot easier to push around a state like cali. I don't think it will be so easy to do that with KY. At least from my observations.

Really? There a 12 states with that law and the feds raid, or pressure, all of them. I used Cali cause that is where I live.

How easy they are to push around is not the point.

Vermont’s medical marijuana dispensaries under new pressure from the feds

Medical marijuana lab in Colorado Springs latest to be raided by DEA

I’m waiting for something good (though some could also say bad) to come out concerning all these States, and State and County police arresting federal agents breaking State laws.

THAT is when things will come to a head if it ever happens.

Banning some-one from Banning something seems a little hypocrtical.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by TKDRL
A lot easier to push around a state like cali. I don't think it will be so easy to do that with KY. At least from my observations.

Really? There a 12 states with that law and the feds raid, or pressure, all of them. I used Cali cause that is where I live.

How easy they are to push around is not the point.

Vermont’s medical marijuana dispensaries under new pressure from the feds

Medical marijuana lab in Colorado Springs latest to be raided by DEA

Again that law does not fall under the Constitution.It falls under the federal Goverments assumed responsibility.These are two very different applications of the Supremacy Clause.Now to further your arguement I suggest you find where the Federal Goverment Implemented a law not in compliance with a Constitutional Right.

Originally posted by TDawgRex
I’m waiting for something good (though some could also say bad) to come out concerning all these States, and State and County police arresting federal agents breaking State laws.

They can't. Fed law supersedes state law. State law enforcement has no power over Federal law enforcement.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

I did, I was editing my post when you were replying to it. Please take another look. Feds are not going to take away your right to bear arms. They do have the legal right to ban certain weapons.

And just because you have the right to bear arms it doesn't mean they can't restrict or even ban gun sales. You would still have the right to bear arms by the constitution, you just wouldn't be able to buy one.

edit on 1/19/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

Explaining the 2nd amendment to foreign pseudo constitutional lawyers gets so tiring. Your other comments aside the "feds" as you put it have 0 constitutional right to ban gun sales.

You people have to stop confusing empirical theory/opinion with fact because this is not a matter of perspective.