Arizona had enough of the Feds.

[Oldgringo]

What happened in Hungary in 1956 or unfortunate events in other central European countries in the 20th century will not happen here. Our social, political, and economic environment is very different. Our established system of government is much more stable. Have a little faith.

- Jim

I hope you're right.

BTW, do you recall President Eisenhower calling in the 101st Airborne to stand down the Arkansas National Guard in Little Rock, Arkansas USA in 1957? Those were scarey and tough times, weren't they?

[chasfm11]

What happened in Hungary in 1956 or unfortunate events in other central European countries in the 20th century will not happen here. Our social, political, and economic environment is very different. Our established system of government is much more stable. Have a little faith.

- Jim

The stability of our Republic is (IMHO) dependent on two things. Our adherence to the rule of law. That makes us different than a Democracy because, supposedly, the majority (or a vocal minority) cannot go beyond the law to bend the population to its will. Second, our Constitution set up, supposedly, a system of checks and balances to keep the power of the government under control.

So how is all of that workin' out for us?

I admit that I'm a bit of a tin foil hat type but do believe that the Saul Alinsky method is being used on us to systematically destabilize our government. The solution is quite simple - we need to somehow get those out of power who march to the Alinsky drum. That is just not as easy as it sounds. Our failure to do that will likely put our country beyond the ability of our corrupted institutions to save it.

[seamusTX]

BTW, do you recall President Eisenhower calling in the 101st Airborne to stand down the Arkansas National Guard in Little Rock, Arkansas USA in 1957? Those were scarey and tough times, weren't they?

I don't recall the episode from direct experience. I would have been two years old and much more concerned with the contents of my baby bottle, or maybe Gerber pureed spinach by then.

The 1960s were plenty scary, what with all those riots and assassinations.

However, my point is that things settle down, and eventually ruffled feathers are smoothed. There was no second war between the states. Jim Crow did go.

No one now alive will admit to being in favor of the status quo at that time. Even George Wallace recanted before he went to his eternal reward.

(No one will admit to voting for Jimmy Carter, either; but he got 40 million popular votes in 1976 and was the last Democratic candidate to carry Texas.)

Meanwhile I will not be quaking in fear of a 37-years-dead Jewish guy from Chicago.

Also I did not notice the U.S. Supreme Court changing sides lately.

- Jim

[ninemm]

Hmmm... are we heading for another War Between the States? Auntie Fedgov is a jealous mistress....

In my personal opinion, no. This isn't like the sectionalism of the 1850s....its not the people "over there" you disagree with, it might be your neighbor right next door. That would be a lot messier than "we're taking our states and going home!".

I wouldn't mind engaging in a little financial war, though.

The wife wants to visit Lake Tahoe. I just gave her a look...she knows how I feel about giving money in any form to commiefornia. She said we could stay on the Nevada side...

I love that Arizona is finally saying "enough is enough". Its a little ridiculous the feds refuse to do the basics, such as SECURING OUR BORDERS, but they've got plenty of time to hassle a state that isn't toeing the federalism uber alles line.

Isn't Galco based in Arizona? Maybe its time for a new holster or something.

There isn't much in Lake Tahoe that is on the California side.

[Poldark]

Galco just recieved an order from me for a holster and go Arizona,draw that line in the sand.

Make Arizona a Bloomberg free zone .

[Barbi Q]

This is great.

What's with that "indivisible" thing in the Pledge of Allegiance?

- Jim

It's like "til death do us part" when your spouse is abusive, and the federal government is being abusive by violating their vows in the constitution.

[74novaman]

What's with that "indivisible" thing in the Pledge of Allegiance?

- Jim

Last I checked the pledge wasn't a part of the Constitution. If I have to choose between a made up pledge and the founding legal document of the US, I think I'll go with the Constitution.

[juggernaut]

It's always nice to see someone stand up to bullies.

Time to order more AZ battle flag stickers.

[seamusTX]

It's like "til death do us part" when your spouse is abusive, and the federal government is being abusive by violating their vows in the constitution.

I see it as more like wanting a divorce because the husband and wife can't agree on a household budget—which is still a serious issue, but no couple would make it to their first anniversary if they had to agree about everything.

No one really answered my question yet. If states can pick which laws to obey, where does it end? And what happens when Pima County disagrees with Arizona state law? Can the local officials decide which state laws to enforce or ignore?

Maybe we'll all end up like this: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=25798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Pima County contains Tucson and is probably the most liberal county in Arizona).

- Jim

[Kythas]

This section of the bill effectively nullifies Wickard v Fulburn, et al:

5. At the time the United States Constitution was ratified on June 21,
1788, the sole and sovereign power to regulate the state business and affairs rested in the state legislature and has always been a compelling state
concern and central to state sovereignty. Accordingly, the public meaning and understanding of Article I, section 8, the "establishment clause" of the
First Amendment and the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, is a matter of compact between this state and the United States as of the time
Arizona was admitted to statehood in 1912. Further, the power to regulate commerce among the several states as delegated to the Congress in Article I,
section 8, clause 3, United States Constitution, as understood at the time of the founding, was meant to empower Congress to regulate the buying and selling of products made by others, and sometimes land, associated finance
and financial instruments and navigation and other carriage across state jurisdictional lines. This power to regulate commerce does not include
agriculture, manufacturing, mining, major crimes or land use, and does not include activities that merely substantially affect commerce.

Looks to me like Arizona is throwing down the gauntlet.

[jordanmills]

Good. Now maybe Texas can grow a pair.

[chasfm11]

It's like "til death do us part" when your spouse is abusive, and the federal government is being abusive by violating their vows in the constitution.

I see it as more like wanting a divorce because the husband and wife can't agree on a household budget—which is still a serious issue, but no couple would make it to their first anniversary if they had to agree about everything.

No one really answered my question yet. If states can pick which laws to obey, where does it end? And what happens when Pima County disagrees with Arizona state law? Can the local officials decide which state laws to enforce or ignore?

Maybe we'll all end up like this: viewtopic.php?f=83&t=25798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Pima County contains Tucson and is probably the most liberal county in Arizona).

- Jim

The States can pick and choose which laws they obey. It ends when the matter is settled as our Forefathers designed - in the judiciary. I just hope that the Justices who are involved actually have some allegiance to Constitution and are not like Justice Sotomayor. She and a few others seem to think that they are the 3rd house of the Legislature and that they get to legislate from the bench.

IMHO, we've had far too few challenges of the laws and regulations that have been passed. I'm glad to see more challenges occur. Will it be bumpy? Yes but better that than the continual slide toward more and more Federal usurpation and a dictatorial Executive branch.

[seamusTX]

I see the issue as not so much "a state" obeying a federal law, but which federal laws can be enforced directly by the feds within the state.

To use what seems to be the favorite example in this case, BATFE licenses all FFLs. Only an FFL can ship or receive firearms interstate. That includes receiving them directly from a manufacturer. (I'm leaving law enforcement and the military out of this discussion.)

If a state passes a law saying that firearms manufactured entirely within the state can be sold and bought without federal regulation, and an FFL sells one of those firearms, BATFE will pull his license. They have already stated that after other another state (Tennessee, IIRC) passed a similar law.

Then the dealer will be in violation of federal law by engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms without a license.

If such a case goes to the Supreme Court, the feds will argue that no machine can be manufactured entirely within a state. Nearly all modern barrels contain chromium, which is imported from Asia and South Africa. No firearms manufacturer that I know of makes every screw and spring.

Whether SCOTUS will buy that argument, I don't know. I don't see them overturning federal firearms laws in a big way, and they have a tendency to support stare decisis and precedent even when they would rather not.

This is all speculation, but as mentioned above, most of the time when a state refuses to acknowledge federal law or a SCOTUS ruling (such as Brown v. Board of Education), the feds prevail.

- Jim

[Big Tuna]

If a state passes a law saying that firearms manufactured entirely within the state can be sold and bought without federal regulation, and an FFL sells one of those firearms, BATFE will pull his license. They have already stated that after other another state (Tennessee, IIRC) passed a similar law.

The dealer could choose to sell guns from Arizona-Arms exclusively and the dealer wouldn't need a FFL. so there's nothing for the BATFE to revoke. State and local law enforcement wouldn't hassle him because he's obeying state and local law.

[seamusTX]

I don't know if BATFE would see it that way. I doubt they would.

According to federal law, anyone who is engaged in the business of trading firearms must have an FFL. The U.S. Department of Justice has been careful never to let a definition of being in the business be defined precisely.

Most likely anyone operating a retail storefront or advertising regularly would be found to require an FFL.

What I am trying to say is that the feds are very unlikely to agree that the states have this power.

- Jim