Printz v. United States 1997 - States and Local Police Can Nullify Fed Gun Laws

[Rebel - KGC]

Crispin,

But....but...but....even if I'm a Canuck.....I want to take everyone's guns.....and then I'm going to sell them all to Red...works for me.....I spent 35 years in marketing.....if there's a way to make a buck.....I'll figure it out.....just 2nd nature to me dude....lol

HA! They are "talking" about invading Canada & Mexico; didn't you know that...? I read it on the INTERNET!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[Treasure_Hunter]

I simply posted a Supreme Court ruling that states a president can not rule over states by executive action, he can not force state employees to carry out federal programs.... This is the grounds the states are using in nullifying the actions being threatened....Nothing more and nothing less..........



On another note, a member can not start a thread to mock other threads, if a moderator feels a thread has degraded to a state of mocking other threads a moderator can delete the posts or the thread...... As per TN rules any thread or post can be deleted at any time for any reason...

"We make no guarantees as to the lifespan of a post or thread, or attachment. We reserve the right to delete any post at any time for any reason."

Ask Red, Chad or several other members in these threads, their threads have been deleted by me in the past at one time or another for violating our rules, as well as timeouts given for violating our rules including attacking a moderator. I try to be fair to both sides, but in the end I will enforce Treasurenet rules.......

"Users may disagree with the decisions or actions of the moderators and/or administrators, however, disagreements, criticism and the like are not to be aired within the forums. Please feel free to PM the person directly rather than air your dirty laundry in public."

"Respect our moderators. Our moderators are tasked with keeping TreasureNet family friendly, on topic, and civil.Not always an easy task. Insults, and personal attacks against our moderators will not be tolerated and may be grounds for account deletion and banning. If you've posted something, and it disappears, don't make a big deal out of it in another post!"

 

[jerseyben]

Don't take it personal. My posts get deleted all the time. If I really want to talk about then I just start a new thread.

As do mine, yet bevo can say "pinko commie libs" and apparently it's no problem.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

As do mine, yet bevo can say "pinko commie libs" and apparently it's no problem.

Did bevo name any member here a "pinko commie lib"? No

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Did bevo name any member here a "pinko commie lib"? No

TY for Clarifying... NOW, we KNOW. Getting "PERSONAL" is a NO NO!

 

[Chadeaux]

Very well spoken. So when the Clinton era "assault weapon ban" was put into law was that law deemed unconstitutional or did it stand as not violating the constitution.

I'll answer the question after you show me where the ban was taken to the Supreme Court. We'll look at the opinions and see if it was Constitutional . . . or not.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I'll answer the question after you show me where the ban was taken to the Supreme Court. We'll look at the opinions and see if it was Constitutional . . . or not.

Great point. Never taken to the Supreme Court. Was viewed by even the most progun people and groups as being totally within the law and constitutional. Also completely legal was the Brady Act, domestic violence offender ban, gun control act of 1968, etc, etc.

Given such a long history of perfectly legal and constitutional bills that have been enacted to place controls and limitations on gun ownership etc, why is any talk of the same all of a sudden the end of the world and unconstitutional. Seems like we have plenty of history? Something to ponder.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

TY for Clarifying... NOW, we KNOW. Getting "PERSONAL" is a NO NO!

Check out our rules, it has always been a no-no.

 

[Rebel - KGC]

Check out our rules, it has always been a no-no.

TY, got a "HARD Copy" of rules. YOU have known it all along. EVERYONE is encouraged to make "Hard Copy"...

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

TY, got a "HARD Copy" of rules. YOU have known it all along. EVERYONE is encouraged to make "Hard Copy"...

LOL, get a hard copy, reb we have hard time getting members to even read them...

Thank you for taking the time to look and print them out......

 

[hvacker]

We can all suffer today because of the incredible poor wording of the 2nd amendment. Now we have to listen to those experts declare what the Founding Fathers meant. Who knows what they meant. All we have is a ambiguous amendment. The writers failed to mention felons, crazy people, what weapons might not be a good idea etc. So now we have a civilian organization, the NRA, to decide what the 2nd meant. Maybe the NRA can Chanel the Founding Fathers. I thought people stopped channeling spirits a while ago.
If the 2nd would be taken literally like some take the Bible we should be allowed to have what ever we want. Nukes and land mines included.
Maybe we should stop analyzing what the writers of the 2nd meant (they are after all, dead) and try to figure out what might work for us today. So far the NRA's ideas are a flop. If you can call "Do nothing" an idea.
And yes, I am former US Military and a gun owner. I just don't happen to own any rocket propelled grenades or SAM's.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Our forefathers may be dead, their writings are not, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights is still here, they left more than enough writings to explain their meanings, the only people they are not clear to are those who want to gut or get rid of the 2nd.

I am also a vet and a gun owner as was my father, grand father's and great grandfather's.

Nukes, tanks, jets, and the rest have absolutely nothing to do with the debate on guns.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Our forefathers may be dead, their writings are not, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights is still here, they left more than enough writings to explain their meanings, the only people they are not clear to are those who want to gut or get rid of the 2nd.

I am also a vet and a gun owner as was my father, grand father's and great grandfather's.

Nukes, tanks, jets, and the rest have absolutely nothing to do with the debate on guns.

TH, i completely agree with you. But Im sure you will agree that we have had numerous gun related laws that are totally within the law and constitutional - Federal assault weapons ban, Brady Act, domestic violence offender ban, gun control act of 1968, etc, etc. Correct? I am not saying these laws were "good" or "bad" or not seriously flawed in their thinking. But they were legal and constitutional. Given that history and fact, why are similar discussions of some level of gun restriction now all of a sudden not legal and unconstitutional?

 

[dejapooh]

Just goes to show you that the supreme court of the 1990's and 2000's is as activist if not more so than the court of the 1950's - 1970's

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

Because of the extent they are wanting to take them now.

The title of this thread is about part of the Brady Bill over turned by Supreme Court.


Here is a fact, vast majority of us will never change our minds on the right to keep and bear arms, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Because of the extent they are wanting to take them now.

The title of this thread is about part of the Brady Bill over turned by Supreme Court.

Here is a fact, vast majority of us will never change our minds on the right to keep and bear arms, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

No one is saying that you should, but as in the past it would again be perfectly constitutional and legal to place some kind of rules/restrictions on gun ownership. This has been going on since the beginning and will continue to go on. Sometimes more restrictions, sometimes less. This is the wonderful system embodied and mandated in our constitution and BofRs created by our founding fathers. The ability to change and evolve our laws that are based upon our interpretation of the founding laws and amendments. I think we are all on the same page here.

And with our great political process your views will be heard and other views will be heard by our elected officials. Those officials will craft laws and those laws will enacted or deemed unconstitutional. We don't always get our way with this system and sometimes it seems someone has read a completely different constitution to come up with some of these crazy laws - but it's a great system and its been working for better or worse for a long time. Best to all.

 

[bill from lachine]

stockpicker,

Which brings us back to jurisprudence....ie; interpretation based in the context of today's world

Regards + HH

Bill

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

The biggest difference I see now is you have a huge percentages of citizens that do not like the direction this country has taken, nor the social policies being forced on us by someone trying to rule by executive action. We feel the time is coming where we may indeed need them to protect ourselves and our families and we do not want to surrender or give another inch of our rights away.

You keep chipping away at a right, you eventually no longer have that right, it just disappears. I'm 64, I remember every election since Eisenhower's, never since I can remember have I seen so many people disenfranchised with the government as now and that includes myself. We are fed up supporting parasites and the socialist direction country has taken.

People ask what has changed, that is what has changed? We need all of the current 2nd amendment rights to defend ourselves from all evil criminal and otherwise based on direction we are headed if it keeps going this direction.

I have got 4 of my friends to join the NRA plus I donate money, the push for gun control has made us stronger, more united and even local and state governments are supporting our cause. It is not just a few thousand people, it is millions of Americans.

 

[0121stockpicker]

The biggest difference I see now is you have a huge percentages of citizens that do not like the direction this country has taken, nor the social policies being forced on us by someone trying to rule by executive action. We feel the time is coming where we may indeed need them to protect ourselves and our families and we do not want to surrender or give another inch of our rights away.

You keep chipping away at a right, you eventually no longer have that right, it just disappears. I'm 64, I remember every election since Eisenhower's, never since I can remember have I seen so many people disenfranchised with the government as now and that includes myself. We are fed up supporting parasites and the socialist direction country has taken.

People ask what has changed, that is what has changed? We need all of the current 2nd amendment rights to defend ourselves from all evil criminal and otherwise based on direction we are headed if it keeps going this direction.

I have got 4 of my friends to join the NRA plus I donate money, the push for gun control has made us stronger, more united and even local and state governments are supporting our cause. It is not just a few thousand people, it is millions of Americans.

Almost every election about 50 percent of the folks are happy and 50 percent of the folks are unhappy.

Rights being chipped away? Don't gun owners have a lot more rights now than when the federal assault weapons ban was in place? With its expiration seems like a lot of rights were gained back? Is this not the case??

 

[Crispin]

Because of the extent they are wanting to take them now.

The title of this thread is about part of the Brady Bill over turned by Supreme Court.


Here is a fact, vast majority of us will never change our minds on the right to keep and bear arms, the Bill of Rights or the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Don't count me in that fact. I came into these discussions with an open mind and you guys radically changed my views. TH, you saw my stance when I first started discussing this...how far have I come? Just because I don't want unlimited access and think reform is necessary, it does not mean that I don't incoporate others opinions to change my views. We all live in the same world. Compromising with each other on everything is a must.