Why nearly all state gun control laws being passed today will soon be null and void

Why nearly all state gun control laws being passed today will soon be null and void

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

I can only hope that the Supremes do what is right and not bend to pressure! I hope this is resolved peacefully! If violence breaks out tptb will turn it to thier advantage! I want all rights protected!

reply to post by Magister


The linked article was nothing but baseless wishful thinking written by someone who has never heard of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which affirmed 2nd amendment rights but also held that the 2nd amendment was not absolute and allowed some regulation. I guess the intent of the linked article was to give some comfort to those who need their shiny penis substitutes.

reply to post by Magister


I can see right off the bat where Adams has once again misread a court case. I like his site, but he is not always right and prone to sensational claims.

He is wrong about the McDonald case and why the 14th was invoked in defense. The 14th came into play because handguns were not illegal, in Chicago, if registered. The problem was Chicago would accept/process registration applications meaning no one could carry a handgun. If they were following their own laws . . . McDonald would have been "immune" to the charges of carrying a handgun "unlawfully" through "due process".

That is the only reason why the 14th supported the 2nd . . . it isn't a blanket claim, but was specific to McDonald's case.

As that was "point #1", I stopped reading . . .

"Gun Control" is about as stupid as: second hand smoke causes cancer, or the "war on terror". Come on y'all, you can't see through the bull dinky? You can't be this naive.

Why nearly all state gun control laws being passed today will soon be null and void,

Don't count on it clearly all us pro gun people clearly don't know what we are talking about.

Clearly the states, and the federal government can dictate our rights how ever they "feel" like it.

Key word there---FEEL.

Originally posted by neo96
Why nearly all state gun control laws being passed today will soon be null and void,

Don't count on it clearly all us pro gun people clearly don't know what we are talking about.

Clearly the states, and the federal government can dictate our rights how ever they "feel" like it.

Key word there---FEEL.

IMO, best way to make sure all of these "ban" bills become null and void is to beat the anti-gunners in a way that ends their agenda, both legally and socially.

Education of the populace on guns, their function, the differences between them, etc; that way they know when they are being fed a line of bull. Education of the populace on their agenda, its history, and the fact it is built on lies and misinfo. Education of the populace on current gun laws, why there are already more than we need, and the fact that all of the "feel good" things like background checks are already on the books waiting to be enforced properly. Not spouting devisive rhetoric like "revolution" and "civil war" when the anti-gunners are already trying to portray us as "crazy" and "dangerous".

Beyond that . . . vote out all anti-gunner state reps and make sure the state constitutions have clear language mirroring the 2nd and specifically highlighting the "individual" rights component of bearing arms.

Example: Arizona State Constitution Article II

Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

I'd like stronger language than impaired, but that is pretty straight forward. Unfortunately, not all state constitutions are that way or even have a "bearing arms" provision.
Example: Colorado State Constitution Article II

Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Heck . . . Colorado doesn't even post a copy of their constitution on their website, I had to go to a law reference site. Can Colorado citizen's claim that the current restrictions go against the state constitution? Not sure. "Called into question" is pretty vague language and they didn't ban firearms, just restricted. It even forbids conceal carry. It doesn't even look like they have open carry, but you can apply for a conceal permit with the sherriff.

Then there is California:
No Provision . . . none

New York:
No Provision . . . none

Originally posted by Magister
Why nearly all state gun control laws being passed today will soon be null and void

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

I can only hope that the Supremes do what is right and not bend to pressure! I hope this is resolved peacefully! If violence breaks out tptb will turn it to thier advantage! I want all rights protected!

I concur with what others have posted- this article is largely wishful thinking. For one thing there will never be a civil war becuase the majority of people are too immersed in their bread and circuses to pay much mind to their rights steadily eroding.

A much more legitimate challenge, especially in New York and Connecticut, is to establish the unconstitutionality of the emergency certification the governors of those states used to to get these laws passed. Emergency certification was meant to get critical legislation out when time is of the essense, for instance, in case of natural disaster and an assistance bill cannot wait to go through the myriad committees. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of guns, a mass shooting by a single sociopath is NOT an emergency situation by any stretch of the imagination, and the fact that a very similar bill to what was passed by emergency certification in Connecticut was actually killed in committee means that the emergency certification was being driven out of political bias rather than time constraints. There is currently a lawsuit filed in NY to have their bans overturned on those very grounds and there can't NOT be a similar lawsuit filed in Connecticut on those grounds as well.

In short, it ain't over yet, and we don't need to rely on antiestablishment escapism to do it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


That's a very good point. The actual legislation being passed is carefully constructed to survive a Supreme Court challenge so there is little hope of the Roberts Court overturning regulatory measures. Unless they have outright banned guns I don't imagine the Court would even hear the case.

You'd have to try and overturn them with a procedural case but even that is iffy. Sure many of these legislative moves were done quickly but were any of their laws actually broken when they did it and is it something the Supreme Court would actually feel its up to them to fix?

Sounds more like a State issue to me. The Roberts Court is very pro-gun, at least in their rulings so far, but they do not find regulation unconstitutional, as they shouldn't, so, sorry but looks like you guys are losing your bang bang shoot em up guns.

i dunno...near as i can tell state gun control laws, and the requirement to have a permit to carry, are already illegal...

lemme break it down..

the constitution is the supreme law of the land...it is the one set of rules EVERYONE has to follow. they trump state laws, and any other federal legislation.

state gun laws violate the 2nd amendment.

the supreme court has ruled that any state or federal legislation that violates any part of the constitution is a non-law, it is invalid, and is to be treated as though it had never been passed. The citizenry is under no obligation to obey invalid laws, law enforcement is under no obligation to enforce invalid laws, and the courts are under no obligation to uphold invalid laws.

furthermore, it's written into the USC that anyone depriving a citizen of their constitutional rights is subject to a fine and jail time..

most people don't know, or understand these facts though, so they willingly obey laws that aren't really laws.

The article started very well. Not sure what happened in the end. The 2A protects the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms and "shall not be infringed". Regardless of previous rulings, any restriction is unconstitutional by anybody who can read. That means that, in fact, it is absolute. And one only has to refer to the writings of the Framers to clarify. Since the purpose of the 2A is to allow the people (individuals) to take up arms and form a well organized militia in the interest of security of the state, then any limitation is unconstitutional, and security includes defense against a tyrannical federal government. Furthermore, the overwhelming power is supposed to reside in the people. So when somebody poses the question of whether or not somebody should be allowed to own a tank, or nuclear weapons, or whatever, then darn right they do. And the world is better for it, because our federal government has proven time and again that they aren't responsible enough to be in charge of that power.