Seems the Feds think they have the final say ..........

Nullification is wrong, Prima facie (on its face, or at first blush or appearance). Federal law has supremacy, and local laws can not overrule national law. Local laws can be more restrictive, but not less. If the feds say the speed limit has to be 65 or less, and you make the speed limit 55, you are good. You can not make it 70...
 

Feds can not enforce any law with out the help of local law, any LAW that violates the constitution is invalid from the moment it is passed, and it is every patriot's duty to refuse to follow any unconstitutionally law.

States have the right to resist any law passed by federal government if it violates the constitution based on 10th amendment. It is time to resist the constant infringement of or rights by Federal government.

If a judge tells you you can not infringe on your neighbors property does that mean it is still ok to grab small pieces of his property or does it mean do not touch his property?
 

So you are arguing that states should have the right to nullify laws they THINK are unconstitutional, without regard to what the Supreme Court has to say about it. So, a local school can disobey Brown v. Board of Ed... based on their opinion of the constitution, even though the Supreme Court says something else entirely? I am afraid you do not understand what it means when a territory joins the United States.
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Feds can not enforce any law with out the help of local law, any LAW that violates the constitution is invalid from the moment it is passed, and it is every patriot's duty to refuse to follow any unconstitutionally law.

States have the right to resist any law passed by federal government if it violates the constitution based on 10th amendment. It is time to resist the constant infringement of or rights by Federal government.

If a judge tells you you can not infringe on your neighbors property does that mean it is still ok to grab small pieces of his property or does it mean do not touch his property?

TH - you have the incorrect meaning if "invalid from the moment it is past". What that means is that if a law is deemed unconstitutional by the court systems than obviously anyone in jail or any actions which took place because of that law are nullified. It's a look back provision.

Obviously following the constitutional process any law needs to go through the court and appeal process to be then deemed unconstitutional.

It does not mean that all of a sudden that joe on the street decides something is unconstitutional so he doesn't need to follow the law.

This is not confrontational or mocking at all just a clarification.
 

So you are arguing that states should have the right to nullify laws they THINK are unconstitutional, without regard to what the Supreme Court has to say about it. So, a local school can disobey Brown v. Board of Ed... based on their opinion of the constitution, even though the Supreme Court says something else entirely? I am afraid you do not understand what it means when a territory joins the United States.

Printz v. United States 1997 - States and Local Police Can Nullify Fed Gun Laws Turns out the Sheriffs and State governments know what they are doing in nullifying the gun laws....Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Federal government can not order state or local govenment employees to enforce a federal mandate on gun control....

"As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, a president can issue executive orders only to employees of the federal government—and only regarding implementing federal laws or programs. A governor can likewise issue executive orders to employees of his state government regarding the laws or programs of that state. Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county. The Supreme Court held in Printz v. U.S. in 1997 that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from ever ordering any state or local official to carry out a federal program. Ironically, that case also involved a sheriff—Jay Printz of Montana—and a federal gun control law"


Fact Check?CNN's Blitzer: Sheriffs Can't Defy Executive Orders  
Printz v. United States 1997
Brief Fact Summary. The federal Brady Act interim provisions required state and local law enforcement officials to temporarily do background checks. Two local law enforcement officials challenged the constitutionality of the interim provisions.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions. Facts. Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (the Act). The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national background check system. Until the national system became computerized, interim provisions for background checks were established. Those provisions provided that state and local law enforcement officers must do background checks before issuing permits to buy firearms. Two local law enforcement officers challenged the constitutionality of the Act’s interim provisions.

Issue. May Congress compel a state or local government to even temporarily implement and administer a federal regulatory program?
"In New York v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held the federal government could not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Thus, the background check provisions of the Act violated this prohibition.

Even if there is no policy-making involved, Congress cannot take away a state’s sovereignty. Federalism mandates states remain independent from the federal government."

Printz v. United States | Casebriefs

They can not force any state agency to enforce a federal program, it has to be federal employees that enforce it and if state law enforcement or legislature refuse then they would have to send in federal troops or employees to enforce it on every single level with the states and and locals refusing to help and infact impeade its enforcement........

It is called the Constitution....
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Printz v. United States 1997 - States and Local Police Can Nullify Fed Gun Laws Turns out the Sheriffs and State governments know what they are doing in nullifying the gun laws....Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the Federal government can not order state or local govenment employees to enforce a federal mandate on gun control....

"As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, a president can issue executive orders only to employees of the federal government—and only regarding implementing federal laws or programs. A governor can likewise issue executive orders to employees of his state government regarding the laws or programs of that state. Every sheriff is a county officer, elected by the voters of that county. The Supreme Court held in Printz v. U.S. in 1997 that the Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from ever ordering any state or local official to carry out a federal program. Ironically, that case also involved a sheriff—Jay Printz of Montana—and a federal gun control law"

Fact Check?CNN's Blitzer: Sheriffs Can't Defy Executive Orders  
Printz v. United States 1997
Brief Fact Summary. The federal Brady Act interim provisions required state and local law enforcement officials to temporarily do background checks. Two local law enforcement officials challenged the constitutionality of the interim provisions.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions. Facts. Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (the Act). The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national background check system. Until the national system became computerized, interim provisions for background checks were established. Those provisions provided that state and local law enforcement officers must do background checks before issuing permits to buy firearms. Two local law enforcement officers challenged the constitutionality of the Act’s interim provisions.

Issue. May Congress compel a state or local government to even temporarily implement and administer a federal regulatory program?
"In New York v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held the federal government could not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Thus, the background check provisions of the Act violated this prohibition.

Even if there is no policy-making involved, Congress cannot take away a state’s sovereignty. Federalism mandates states remain independent from the federal government."

Printz v. United States | Casebriefs

They can not force any state agency to enforce a federal program, it has to be federal employees that enforce it and if state law enforcement or legislature refuse then they would have to send in federal troops or employees to enforce it on every single level with the states and and locals refusing to help and infact impeade its enforcement........

It is called the Constitution....

Right but ruling seems to deal exclusively with executive orders and not laws - two completely diff things.

On the flip side it seem a few folks are trying to get around the Feds by crafting laws talking about guns manufactured and sold within a single state - getting around Feds trump on "interstate commerce". I think they are trying this in WA?? Someone posted it a little while back. It is being challenged so might not hold up but could end up at the Supreme Court. Obviously this wouldn't help any large manufacturers as they do biz in multiple states.
 

Nullification is wrong, Prima facie (on its face, or at first blush or appearance). Federal law has supremacy, and local laws can not overrule national law. Local laws can be more restrictive, but not less. If the feds say the speed limit has to be 65 or less, and you make the speed limit 55, you are good. You can not make it 70...

This applies to Interstates, not state roads. There are areas where state law trumps the Fed.
 

You need to read it again Stock, The Brady act was a gun control law, (people control law) passed by congress and it was ruled they could not force states to do federal regulatory programs.

"Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (the Act). The Act required the Attorney General to establish a national background check system. Until the national system became computerized, interim provisions for background checks were established. Those provisions provided that state and local law enforcement officers must do background checks before issuing permits to buy firearms. Two local law enforcement officers challenged the constitutionality of the Act’s interim provisions.

Issue. May Congress compel a state or local government to even temporarily implement and administer a federal regulatory program?
"In New York v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) held the federal government could not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. Thus, the background check provisions of the Act violated this prohibition."



As far as Constituiton goes..
"a law that is unconstitutional, ceases to be a law the moment it is passed...
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
-16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256​

There are millions of us that will not surrender our rights under the Bill of Rights as easily as some of you.............If they want to declare 65-70 millions Americans as criminals because we refuse to follow an unconstitutional illegal law then let them......

What happens when you back an animal in the cornor, make him mad and keep poking him with a stick, he will come out fighting mad, you back us in a cornor we will come out fighting..................................No one has the right to take our rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights away from us!
 

Last edited:
I bet the number is higher than 65-70 million in support of the second.....
 

I bet the number is higher than 65-70 million in support of the second.....

I think TH was referring to the number of gun owners....I could be wrong on that.
 

So you are arguing that states should have the right to nullify laws they THINK are unconstitutional, without regard to what the Supreme Court has to say about it. So, a local school can disobey Brown v. Board of Ed... based on their opinion of the constitution, even though the Supreme Court says something else entirely? I am afraid you do not understand what it means when a territory joins the United States.
A good reason to support possible succession........Fed out of control and trampling the constitution.
 

I think TH was referring to the number of gun owners....I could be wrong on that.
Yup, your probably right but tends to be one and the same. I realize some do not own guns and support the second.
 

Yup, your probably right but tends to be one and the same. I realize some do not own guns and support the second.

I think lots of people do not own guns but support the second...they just will not be that useful during an uprising. Unless of course, one happens to be a doctor wielding a samurai sword...they have a tendency to be useful at times.
 

Last edited:
dieselram94 said:
A good reason to support possible succession........Fed out of control and trampling the constitution.

I think we had some states down south try that a little while back. Didnt work out too well if my memory serves me right.
 

I bet the number is higher than 65-70 million in support of the second.....

I am sure your right Deisel, I was only talking about the gun owners....

How long has the drug war been going on and what has it accomplished? You can still go into any city and find drugs if you want to find them. The drug war has not stopped drugs at all so why do they think people control laws will stop criminals from getting guns????? It want, it will only restrict law abiding citizens from purchasing guns legally...Criminals don't care about the laws, that is why they are criminals...
 

I think lots of people own guns but do not support the second...they just will not be that useful during an uprising. Unless of course, one happens to be a doctor wielding a samurai sword...they have a tendency to be useful at times.
Just make sure it is sharpened and polished to a mirror finish as it will blind them and give you an "edge" :laughing7:
 

I am sure your right Deisel, I was only talking about the gun owners....

How long has the drug war been going on and what has it accomplished? You can still go into any city and find drugs if you want to find them. The drug war has not stopped drugs at all so why do they think people control laws will stop criminals from getting guns????? It want, it will only restrict law abiding citizens from purchasing guns legally...Criminals don't care about the laws, that is why they are criminals...

I think this is all part of the plan.....And you are right only the criminals will have guns. And us patriots of course.
 

Peopole didn't thinl our fore father's had a chance either, seems to me that turned out pretty good.

It wouldn't be north vs south, it is much more likely to be gorilla warfare and it would not be confined to one general area. It is not something this country wants to go through, all would be affected, not just those who chose to defend their rights. Stock market would crash most likely, and there would be attacks on the infrastructure..

.It is not something I want to see happen, but the possibility is certainly there if they continue to try to destroy the 2nd amendment, I know you don't see it that way, but there are millions and millions of us that do see it that way. For me personally I see it as a direct threat to my rights and freedoms and my kids and grandkids rights and freedoms guaranteed in Bill of Rights and the debating in the world will never change that view....



I think we had some states down south try that a little while back. Didnt work out too well if my memory serves me right.
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom