Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nullification: 2nd Amendment Saved by 10th Amendment

page: 1
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I was viewing the link posted to this site by thunder57


Originally posted by thunder57
This might be a better way, I found a law passed by New Hampshire back in 2009 called HCR-0006, It is really good and precise for what we all need right now. It might be something we can send to our more gun friendly congressmen and women to help get the ball rolling to make a change in our respective state laws before it is to late to do anything about it. Here is the law: www.gencourt.state.nh.us...
edit on 23-1-2013 by thunder57 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by thunder57 because: (no reason given)


I read the article at the linked site and the most important language given our current political climate was in the summery at the bottom of the page. I will post it here as it's language is important when considering a 10th amendment challenge of the current measures to erode our liberties as outlined in the 2nd amendment.


That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.

Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.


This is pretty serious talk but it must be looked at given the obvious current in the US for greater police state powers being awarded to every level of government by the empire of lies A.K.A. the Banksters in charge of the globalist cabal that is working this disarmament angle against the citizens of the USA. It stops at the state and country levels. They are cutting under that with their Mayors for gun grabbing headed by Bloomberg. We need some law moved in every state and county making this gun grab fantasy go away quick before people start getting into a real fight over this issue.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I have been posting in a lot of threads:

The 10th comes comes before the 2nd!

The reason for this is rather clear. The Federal government shall not make laws overstepping their boundaries, which are very limited by the Constitution, when it comes to governing states.


The states went through a 10th amendment re-affirmation after Obama was elected the first time. Ironically, the states that did so are the most outspoken on the proposed gun bans heading down the pike.

I created a thread here, for people to follow, to allow them to search for their state on a clickable map to see where they stand on the current situation.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is very heavily involved with 10th amendment rights firstly, as the 10th actually protects the 2nd more than people realize.

Please give the thread a browse, it is highly informative, educational, has great links, and answers a lot of questions about states rights.

edit on 23-1-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Now is the time for everyone to approach every single one of their elected officials and tell them to do their jobs. Which is to protect and follow the constitution of the United States. All the way up to the oval office. If Obama elects not to follow our constitution it is grounds for impeachment. Plain and simple...

Now the vote for impeachment is done by the house of representatives. Which as it stands, has a majority of republicans. Go ahead Obama, make our day.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
The 2nd amendment without the 10th brought things like the Chicago gun ban, the D.C. gun ban and San fransisco's attempt at a full gun ban.

The 10th is needed to keep the 2nd strong ....but the 2nd is needed FIRST to insure the states don't take the 10th to just negate the right entirely, IMO.

Heller incorporated the 2nd which made it apply down to the local level....that was a good thing, IMO.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by exitusstatuquo
 


Wow..this means many of the rights taken away, or severely infringed can be reversed, legally.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I notice you mention city gun bans. That seems to be where the most abuse of power lies. The City of Washington D.C. for example has had its gun ban put down by the supreme court not long ago did it not? It seems that the gun grabbers work from cities such as the district of criminals and NY. These cities should be put in line by their respective states for overstepping the rights of the individual. 2nd is an individual right so protected from all levels of government including cities.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
then why are automatic weapons banned.

an automatic rifle meets the definition of a type of arm.

since they are banned to most americans without jumping thru several federal loops, the right to bear that arm is being infringed upon by it's type.

since the law is in the books, it would lead any rational person to believe the federal government of the united states can do anything it wants as long as its justices are bought and paid for.

i.e. there is dirt on them, just like everybody else in government.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Libertygal, thanks for posting to my thread. I had not seen this yet and its relevant content.

This is why TPTB like to act like people who cling to constitutional principles are terrorists. We want peace and security but we want a nation of law and principle first and foremost. A temporary feeling of security at the cost of hard won liberty is no prize I want to give my heirs.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


That was passed at a time when the government felt bold enough to make the sales of alcohol illegal. That did not work out well for the government and they banned full auto at a time when people were just not able to assemble for a political fight like they can in the internet age.

But having fired lots of full auto weapons from various nations I can say from experience that they are a bit of a public safety concern. What comes up must come down and when someone is firing full auto they are a danger to everyone in town not just the people directly in front of the muzzle of the weapon. I think we should limit civilian owned arms to 3 round burst mode for the safety of everyone else.

Trigger discipline training should also be mandatory.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by exitusstatuquo
 


You're welcome. I thought you may enjoy that. It is loaded with great information, and it gets very hard to keep retyping it, so I just compiled it into one thread.

I am glad more people are realizing that the Federal government is far over reaching their bounds. So many think federal law overrides all, but it just isn't true.


Keep up the good work!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
subscribing



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by exitusstatuquo
 

You're right about most regulation coming at the local level as well as state. In a recent thread that didn't develop quite like some would have wanted, I'd had the chance to do a great deal of research on the differences and actually? The Federal Regulation is/was fairly straight forward and basic. The NICS check, the National Firearms Act with it's related laws dating back to the 30's and primarily regulating things like machine guns, silencers and true military grade weapons with a few other things since. Really? Very little though.

Look to the states and cities....and why can the cities do what they do? Ask the state. My state, as an example, has a supremacy clause for the CCW that prohibits local governments from doing anything beyond what the State has laid down as the law. Conversely, they did NOT do that for the open carry law and you can go from being legal to outlaw by simply crossing city boundaries from one to another.


Now I'd LOVE to see it all simplified at the Federal Level as the last estimates I saw put total gun regulations in the United States over 25,000 combined down to local levels. What sense does that make? The problem, of course, is that all 50 states won't agree or tolerate each other's laws. Shall Texas law be national? Missouri? Should New York or California's law be set as Federal?

Yeah..I do agree with the 10th ...as it's necessary to maintain and not actually RESTRICT the rights as they stand by Super Court decisions on the federal level.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Now I'd LOVE to see it all simplified at the Federal Level as the last estimates I saw put total gun regulations in the United States over 25,000 combined down to local levels.


Then why have individual states? Why have municipalities? Just nationalize it and make it simple? What is good for New York is good for North Dakota? While I agree a baseline is needed (well, not needed because the baseline has been set for over 230+ years), an all inclusive regulation will not serve the republic well. Just look to any other laws that should be State and/or the Peoples' issues that have been nationalized. It is always disastrous on a larger scale to appease the smaller minority of the whole.


Yeah..I do agree with the 10th ...as it's necessary to maintain and not actually RESTRICT the rights as they stand by Super Court decisions on the federal level.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)


Then you misunderstand the 10th (and 9th by extension). See Bond v. United States and see how the 10th trumps Federal Law.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

It's the perspective of a trucker for most of my life that I come to this from. It's one thing to talk on a web site about laws changing from legal to felony carrying prison time over the distance of a few miles and crossing a line on a map. It's quite another to actually live it, day in and day out and know that because you have traveled from Reno to Sacramento, for instance, you can now go to prison for multiple years for the weapon you wee 100% legal to defend yourself with just a few hours ago.

Let's take another example and here is a real good one that actually happens often enough to truckers to be mentioned in some training I had while working. New York State is among a couple known to freely ignore and violate the provisions of the Interstate Transportation of Firearms. It depends on the cop and his attitude ...with that being double within New York City proper. I've personally been told by NYPD that I'd better have a gun or I'd better leave the city and come back in the morning. That was sitting outside Hunts Point several years ago. On the other hand....if it's a Boy Scout cop with a God Complex? What does this state law DO to people who would have the means of defense?


Possess without permit: class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both

Possess loaded firearm without permit, outside of person's home or place of business: class C felony, classified as violent felony offense, punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum of 3.5 years

N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.01, 265.03, 265.20
Source

So... On one hand, a cop can tell you in good sense you better have one in your vehicle somewhere ...and leave without ever directly asking what can't be answered ..... a different one or a rookie? I might have done 3 1/2 years in a State Prison.....or 15..depending on cop, circumstance and how the reports got written up. Why? Well, because I had (and usually DID have, by the way) what was 100% legal in almost every state in our nation under reciprocity CCW permit regs.

^^^ That's the insanity of how the freedom of state regulation to undermine a Federal Constitutional right has been used as granted by the 10th amendment. Some folks in discussion here (not you) speak as if the 10th isn't used or doesn't have dramatic impact. They'd have a few years in Attica or Sing Sing Prison to consider that ..... if caught in the wrong moment.

That's why I would say on one hand, I'd want baseline and federalized standards. It's that other side of it I mention, which is the problem and you hit on yourself. Whose standard? Missouri or New York? Near total freedom for a law abiding citizen to carry and defend themselves or 3.5-15 years in state prison for simply CARRYING a weapon for defense without a permit that is nearly impossible to get?

Crazy system isn't it?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
then why are automatic weapons banned.

an automatic rifle meets the definition of a type of arm.

since they are banned to most americans without jumping thru several federal loops, the right to bear that arm is being infringed upon by it's type.

since the law is in the books, it would lead any rational person to believe the federal government of the united states can do anything it wants as long as its justices are bought and paid for.

i.e. there is dirt on them, just like everybody else in government.


They are banned ILLEGALLY and this needs to be reversed.

Jaden



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Let's take another example and here is a real good one that actually happens often enough to truckers to be mentioned in some training I had while working. New York State is among a couple known to freely ignore and violate the provisions of the Interstate Transportation of Firearms.



You might want to read the first part of the code. It defers to local laws, codes, et cetera.
[emphasis added]

18 USC § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.


edit on 1/24/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
then why are automatic weapons banned.

an automatic rifle meets the definition of a type of arm.

since they are banned to most americans without jumping thru several federal loops, the right to bear that arm is being infringed upon by it's type.

since the law is in the books, it would lead any rational person to believe the federal government of the united states can do anything it wants as long as its justices are bought and paid for.

i.e. there is dirt on them, just like everybody else in government.


You can go buy an automatic weapon right now. Go find one at a class III dealer online find what you want to buy, fill out your form 4 and pay $200 for your tax stamp, wait a few months for the feds to do their due diligence and enjoy burning up ammunition for no reason. You can also set up a trust.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by exitusstatuquo
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I notice you mention city gun bans. That seems to be where the most abuse of power lies. The City of Washington D.C. for example has had its gun ban put down by the supreme court not long ago did it not?


no - not really.

the issue was fairly complex, but what WDC wanted to do was (or in fact actually did do from 1975 until 2008) was ban handguns and certain automatic weapons, and also all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."[ (see wiki article on the legislation)

the court concluded that requiring arms to be kept unloaded with trigger locks in place was an unlawful prohibition on a lawful activity - namely using said arms for self defence in the home.

the court also ruled that handguns are "arms" in the meaning of the 2nd amendment (which i would have thought a no-brainer) therefore they could not be banned outright.

however the court also noted that strict licencing requirements and prohibition of certain types of firearms (such as automatic rifles) was constitutional.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


There seems to be a lot of obtuse language in this law you are sighting. I wonder if the law has been given any judicial review in case law? Do you happen to know if this has been challenged in a court of law?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
That would only work for Federal Gun Control...not much help in places like California.






top topics



 
20
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join