Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

page: 1
41
<<   2 >>

log in

join
+20 more 
posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

March 21, 2014 – On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.

S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.

Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, cheered the governor’s action. “By signing this nullification bill into law, Idaho has joined an elite class of states that are telling the feds to ‘get lost’ — especially when it comes to unconstitutional gun control infringements”


benswann.com...

The full text of the bill PDF:
legislature.idaho.gov...

Amazing. Not just a bill, not just a law, but an emergency act to STOP the gun grabbing anti-constitutionalists.

HA! And some other states have done the same. As more states do this, it's going to be tougher and tougher for the feds to keep meddling where they have no business. I mean that's some serious bi-partisan support there: House- 68-0, Senate- 34-0!

Another state has stood up to the tyranny, and said

NO!!!!!!



edit on Sat Mar 22nd 2014 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 06:51 PM
link   
One of the many reasons I miss Idaho, I wish Texas would do the same, in fact I wish many states would follow suit...this sort of thing needs to be done by every state in the union to let Washington know , in no uncertain terms will we deal with over reaching government on our rights



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


But at the end of the day if the feds really want to ignore that, they are still able to correct?

This is just the Governor stating that state resources will not be used to enforce any new laws right?
edit on ndSat, 22 Mar 2014 19:15:06 -0500America/Chicago320140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


But at the end of the day if the feds really want to ignore that, they are still able to correct?

This is just the Governor stating that state resources will not be used to enforce any new laws right?
edit on ndSat, 22 Mar 2014 19:15:06 -0500America/Chicago320140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

Pretty much. The Feds have the Supremacy Clause working on their side and the DHS to bust down your doors if they want to.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   
That is really neat!

Thanks for sharing the article... I cant believe they were unanimous votes! Maybe there is some hope left.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Snarl

Sremmos80
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


But at the end of the day if the feds really want to ignore that, they are still able to correct?

This is just the Governor stating that state resources will not be used to enforce any new laws right?
edit on ndSat, 22 Mar 2014 19:15:06 -0500America/Chicago320140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)

Pretty much. The Feds have the Supremacy Clause working on their side and the DHS to bust down your doors if they want to.


The fed must have state cooperation to do anything. If the state says no what it means is this will end at the supreme court in a suit over states rights with attached constitutional issues. Bottom line it puts state law enforcement on the opposite side of the fed and could even mean conflict.

Fed gonna find it real hard to do anything without state support. They depend on it more than you might think.

I just say way to go Idaho, what are the other states..... The fed is gonna change anyway, next president is republican. That changes everything.

The Bot



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Sremmos80
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


But at the end of the day if the feds really want to ignore that, they are still able to correct?

This is just the Governor stating that state resources will not be used to enforce any new laws right?
edit on ndSat, 22 Mar 2014 19:15:06 -0500America/Chicago320140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


No.. as I understand it there is a MYTH going around that says federal laws trump state laws - This is BS Only the Feds would have you believe. The US constitution is King here and cannot be trumped by any federal law where the same constitution gives the States specific rights. In this case the State has the right to their own choice and there is Nothing the stupid Feds can do about it.

This is the same principle that tells a local Sheriff that if Obama The Commander and Chief, President of the USA, himself comes into town and the Sheriff doesn't want him there, he has the legal authority to forcibly kick that no good SOB OUT.. nothing any feds or secret service can do about it. Nada.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   
If we aren't careful we might just gain a little of our freedom back....Merica'


I'm glad to see state bucking the federal government. On ALL fronts.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Very good news for Idaho.


Arizona has a vote coming up on this soon and it looks like it will have no problems passing.

I also think other states will climb on board.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Sorry to rain on your parade...

But in the case of an emergency, wouldn't the Patriot Act render any state (or federal) law completely moot ? All the government has to do is use the words "terrorist attack" or "declaration of war" or "potential terrorism" or "state of distress" or some such catchall phrase, and the POTUS would then lawfully be able to implement the Patriot Act agreement to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, in any means they want ?

Edit to add:

So if that's the case... Then this is nothing but lip service.
edit on 22-3-2014 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CranialSponge
 

You're correct.

this is nothing but lip service.

Better than just sitting quietly. What the voters must ensure is that the folks they choose to send to Washington are carrying an agenda of reform. That means erasing some Very Bad laws that got through under questionable pretense.

Until that starts ... it's all talk : no action.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   

JohnPhoenix

Sremmos80
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


But at the end of the day if the feds really want to ignore that, they are still able to correct?

This is just the Governor stating that state resources will not be used to enforce any new laws right?
edit on ndSat, 22 Mar 2014 19:15:06 -0500America/Chicago320140680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)


No.. as I understand it there is a MYTH going around that says federal laws trump state laws - This is BS Only the Feds would have you believe. The US constitution is King here and cannot be trumped by any federal law where the same constitution gives the States specific rights. In this case the State has the right to their own choice and there is Nothing the stupid Feds can do about it.

This is the same principle that tells a local Sheriff that if Obama The Commander and Chief, President of the USA, himself comes into town and the Sheriff doesn't want him there, he has the legal authority to forcibly kick that no good SOB OUT.. nothing any feds or secret service can do about it. Nada.


I agree with everything you have to say, but we have seen time after time that the feds do not share the same views and will gladly disagree with everything you have said here and have the power to do so.

It is good to see the governor offer his lip service, but at the end of the day that is what it was.

Oh and the president would tell a sheriff to go stick it where the sun don't shine if he tried to kick him out, not just the current one, but just about every single one that was ever in office



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



This is why we live in Idaho and love it. Especially, after living in Kalifornia for thirty-four years and putting up with the BS there.



posted on Mar, 22 2014 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher777
 


You think Cali is bad try Chicago.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Well, that was quite a landslide through both the house and senate. Not a single 'no' vote!

I agree that more states need to follow this. Im certain the Arizona version of this is going to pass in that state soon as well.



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   

buni11687
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Well, that was quite a landslide through both the house and senate. Not a single 'no' vote!

I agree that more states need to follow this. Im certain the Arizona version of this is going to pass in that state soon as well.


AHHH..the Feds. They're realizing we don't need them any more and they're freaking the # out.


Karma be a comin'



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 05:46 AM
link   

TiedDestructor

buni11687
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Well, that was quite a landslide through both the house and senate. Not a single 'no' vote!

I agree that more states need to follow this. Im certain the Arizona version of this is going to pass in that state soon as well.


AHHH..the Feds. They're realizing we don't need them any more and they're freaking the # out.


Karma be a comin'


Karma indeed. Changes are definitely coming. Im not from Arizona, but here's the latest information I found for their bill.

tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com...


On Jan. 30th, Senator Kelli Ward of Arizona introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act SB1294. The legislation would prohibits the state from enforcing “any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.” Judge Andrew Napolitano has said that such legislation would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”



STATUS – 02-10-14, Judiciary commitee hearing and vote.
02-10-14 – Passed Judiciary, 6-3
02-24-14 – Passed Rules committee, 4-2
Full senate vote in the coming days.


In regards to the Feds...it doesn't look good for the current administration come 2014 midterms, atleast from what Ive been reading. Also, the Feds don't have as much power as some believe they do (as others have already mentioned).



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 05:52 AM
link   
good to hear OP
just a remembrance though:
a civil war has already been fought once by divergent states...



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
They have done the something here as Idaho is somewhat on it's own. Any attempt to enforce federal gun laws over state statutes will cause the south to succeed. They know it and will never try. Is Idaho is the only state in the region to put this on the books?

What in the world does the Patriot Act have to do with states rights.
edit on 23-3-2014 by spooky24 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2014 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Gooooooo Idaho!

I knew they were good for more than potatoes and good scenery.





new topics
 
41
<<   2 >>

log in

join