HB553 - Preservation of the Second Amendment

[brainman]

This is EXACTLY what I've been saying we need. Sorry Fed, I can't help you. No, you can't use my phone. Nah, can't use the radios. Nope, I can't give you directions.

[sjfcontrol]

This is EXACTLY what I've been saying we need. Sorry Fed, I can't help you. No, you can't use my phone. Nah, can't use the radios. Nope, I can't give you directions.

I can think of some directions they could give them...

(No, I mean like "Washington is due East." )

[RPB]

ohhhh I get it ...
FED says STATE can't enforce FED Immigration Law, so STATE can't help w/FED Gun Control = Same Logic
makes sense
... sorry @BarackObama @vp

[srothstein]

Charles,

I have some questions about this bill. The way I read it, it includes the existing laws. This includes the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968. Was that the intent or am I missing something?

Would it also include a comptroller audit that found violations of the excise tax law on sporting goods that gives money to enforce wildlife management?

Finally, would it not be enforceable against federal agents based on the court decisions in the Horiuchi case? I have not read them all, but I understood that the SCOTUS ruled that a federal agent could not violate state law in the line of his duty. I know there was a little more to that ruling though. That was the case where the FBI sniper was charged with manslaughter for shooting the wife of Randy Weaver during the raid. I don't want to get into the right or wrong of anything involved in that case, just how those rulings would affect this bill.

I like the bill, both as a law and as a statement. Maybe get the feds to take notice of what a large percentage of the people want.

[packa45]

I like this. It fits nicely with the administrations efforts to get Arizona law enforcement to stop enforcing federal immigration law. How can the Feds defend telling local law enforcement that you must enforce Federal law X, but not Federal law Y?

That is exactly what I was talking with my dad about yesterday. They want the stat's help with this, but not that? I don't think so. Looks like a whole bunch of states are also having a problem with that logic in addition to the constitutional issue.

It's actually a bit stronger and clearer than you stated. In the Arizona immigration case, the administration makes the claim that states MAY NOT enforce federal law.

But Arizona isn't enforcing federal laws.. They are enforcing state laws modeled after the federal law... Perfectly legal IMO but I'm not a lawyer...
Also states apparently cannot make laws that are less strict than the Feds but as many states have done they CAN make laws that are more restrictive than the Feds. So where is the problem with states copying federal law and making it state law???

Anyway back on topic to every state senator/rep that will openly support thus bill

[jimlongley]

. . . a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. . . .

Chas.

If there were enough states to pass an amendment to the Constitution???

I'll admit to not knowing enough about how an amendment is done, but it sure makes one wonder "what if."

[RoyGBiv]

Instead of arresting Feds, why not create a new class of State Militia, one that the average Joe and Jane can belong to with minimal fuss and expense.

According to the AWB of 1994,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...3hr3355enr.pdf

‘‘(4) Paragraph (1) [THE BAN] shall not apply to—
‘‘(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by
the United States or a department or agency of the United
States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision
of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement
officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law
enforcement (whether on or off duty);

[Charles L. Cotton]

Stephen:
We weren't involved in this bill at all, so I can't comment about the intent. As I read it, it only creates an offense for enforcing a federal statute that directly involves confiscating, banning or limiting guns or magazines. I don't read it as prohibiting the seizing of firearms as a result of making an otherwise lawful arrest. Since the NFA is basically a registration/taxing scheme, I don't see it as coming withing the scope of HB553, but there may be some provisions that do.

I'll have to read the Horiuchi case again, but I'm pretty sure that it won't help. It dealt with a federal agent violating a state law unrelated to the federal law he claimed to be enforcing. There's a Supreme Court case dead on point that clearly prohibits state officers from arresting federal agents because they are carrying out their official duties. I hope to meet with Otto's office soon.

Chas.

Charles,

I have some questions about this bill. The way I read it, it includes the existing laws. This includes the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968. Was that the intent or am I missing something?

Would it also include a comptroller audit that found violations of the excise tax law on sporting goods that gives money to enforce wildlife management?

Finally, would it not be enforceable against federal agents based on the court decisions in the Horiuchi case? I have not read them all, but I understood that the SCOTUS ruled that a federal agent could not violate state law in the line of his duty. I know there was a little more to that ruling though. That was the case where the FBI sniper was charged with manslaughter for shooting the wife of Randy Weaver during the raid. I don't want to get into the right or wrong of anything involved in that case, just how those rulings would affect this bill.

I like the bill, both as a law and as a statement. Maybe get the feds to take notice of what a large percentage of the people want.

[JALLEN]

. . . a number of states are filing such bills and if enough of them are passed, it sends a strong signal to Washington. . . .

Chas.

If there were enough states to pass an amendment to the Constitution???

I'll admit to not knowing enough about how an amendment is done, but it sure makes one wonder "what if."

The Constitution can be amended either by Congress putting out a proposed amendment for ratification by 3/4ths of the states or by Legislatures or conventions in each state called for the purpose, then ratified by 3/4ths of the States, but what would such an amendment look like?

"We really, really mean that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means you, Congress, and you, Legislatures"?

[RottenApple]

"We really, really mean that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This means you, Congress, and you, Legislatures"?

I read that and first I . And then I cause it's true!

[baldeagle]

Now THIS is the EXACT sort of thing that I was hoping for...doesn't "invalidate" Federal law, it just keeps them from getting any help from the law enforcement resources of this state or its political subdivisions...and good luck fully enforcing the thing with ONLY Federal resources. I LIKE IT, A LOT!

It does something else that is very positive. It removes the conflict that all LEOs would have between standing up for the Constitution and losing their job or violating the Constitution and keeping their job. More than that, it makes it illegal for those few who don't give a hoot about the Constitution and would gladly take our guns from enforcing the unconstitutional law. It's a great, creative solution to the problem. Furthermore, any complaints from the Feds can be met with, "Hey, you don't enforce your own laws, why should we enforce the ones you choose to enforce?"

[baldeagle]

12 states have now jumped on the bandwagon in one form or another - http://cavnews.wordpress.com/2013/01/18 ... trol-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AEA]

I knew this would get legs when Wyoming started the ball rolling! Now if we can just get say....40 States, we would be doing fine!

[srothstein]

Thanks Charles. I am sure you are right about Horiuchi since I did not read the actual ruling, just the media coverage. I know how unreliable that is.

As for the effects of the law, the parts that worried me are where it went a little far, in my opinion. The bold below included taxing firearms and did not say new laws. That would include the NFA and the excise tax.

(a) A person who is a Peace Officer, State Officer, or State Employee commits an offense if the person, while acting under color of the person's office or employment, intentionally enforces or attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.

[jmra]

12 states have now jumped on the bandwagon in one form or another - http://cavnews.wordpress.com/2013/01/18 ... trol-laws/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;