It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: Missouri Legislators Vote To Nullify All Federal Gun Control Laws

page: 2
49
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


They should be able to, unless stated otherwise in a parole agreement. Once parole is up, then that is that. Turning people into second class citizens after they have "paid their debt to society" is ridiculous. Especially with the ridiculous mountain high book of "laws" meant to feed people to the for profit prison industry.




posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I love my state! Besides the critically harsh marijuana laws this is the best state to live in.
And for everyone that fears guns you're more than welcome to move to china or any other communist country that forbids its citizens to own fire arms.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


They should be able to, unless stated otherwise in a parole agreement. Once parole is up, then that is that. Turning people into second class citizens after they have "paid their debt to society" is ridiculous. Especially with the ridiculous mountain high book of "laws" meant to feed people to the for profit prison industry.


Exactly, hence the meaning of "serving time"

If they didn't think the sentence was long enough, they should've extended it in the first place.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
More prick waving-vote grabbing-voter pandering-but meaningless legislation.....



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:03 AM
link   

stirling
More prick waving-vote grabbing-voter pandering-but meaningless legislation.....


Say what you will but if "prick" waving supports our rights as American citizens, then we should all be walking around with our "cocks" out!



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
LMAO! I bet that puke bag witch Diane Feinstein is having a bad hair day after hearing about this! LMAO!

Hopefully she will come unhinged, and someone with authority will throw her into a mental asylum, and in the nearest padded room with a straight jacket strapped on.

That women is a dangerous, crack pot lunatic that needs to be locked up as soon as possible before she does anymore harm to The United States Constitution. ~$heopleNation



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Don't get me wrong. I applaud this.


But I worry that this sets the stage for division within our fragile, broken country.

In recent threads, I've seen a further desire to separate, divide, rather than unite.


What do you propose?

If entire states, the ones who listen to their constituents anyway... stand up and say no more, this has a better chance of changing the federal government's stances. So long as people empower the federal government, they wont stop until this is a communist country.


Madison clearly expected the states to serve as a check on federal power. He laid out the blueprint. And when the people of states have followed it, they’ve found success. But sadly, states seldom follow Madison’s prescription. Why? Because the people don’t demand it. Too often, they grovel in marble hallways along the Potomac and beg federal officials to stop abusing their authority, instead of demanding that they stop. The power ultimately lies in us – the people.

We can’t blame the Constitution for our failure to enforce it.

Far too many Americans view any resistance to federal authority as rebellion. They need to recognize that the true rebels are elected officials, federal bureaucrats and functionaries in Washington D.C. who refuse to respect the constitutional limits of their power. It’s time for us to take on our proper role in this system and put down the rebellion.

As Madison said, the means are “powerful and at hand.”


tenthamendmentcenter.com...

If anything is to change, it is up to us to effect that change. This is how... this is our best chance.


edit on 22-2-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

alienreality
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Although state efforts to nullify federal laws generally have been tossed out by courts, Missouri and other states have decided to try anyway.


This is just wording by some MSM to hold to their mandate of propagandizing everything they publish so it reflects the current administration.

I say this because nullification by states does NOT depend on any court rulings to implement in the first place.

Nullification is simply eradication of an illegal federal law and it doesn't require any court trial to "pass"

The illegal law is already in the garbage dumpster. If their is a trial over it, those attending the trial are just putting on a circus act for the media.


Their is no way to respond rationally to irrational responses.

Claims that the earth is round vs. flat are also just "wording" by this logic?

All opinions and opposing positions aside...these laws have been dismissed in court or vetoed by governors before they became law in order to avoid the embarrassment. This isn't an opinion, it is actual documented, historical fact.



A similar gun rights bill passed the [Missouri] Legislature last year, but was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. A veto override attempt failed in the Senate after the chamber's two top Republicans voted against the measure because of concerns over several provisions.

www.therolladailynews.com...



The Montana law already met a major legal blow. In 2009, Montanan Gary Marbut sued to be able to make and sell his .22 caliber rifle, the “Montana Buckaroo”, without federal interference. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled on Aug. 29 of this year that federal laws requiring licensing fees and government inspections preempt Montana’s law. “[E]ven if Marbut never sells the Buckaroo outside of Montana, Congress could rationally conclude that unlicensed firearms would make their way into the interstate market,” Judge Richard R. Clifton wrote for the three-judge panel, citing the 10th Amendment’s so-called Commerce Clause. Mabut said he will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

When Nixon vetoed Missouri’s nullification law, he cited a different rule: the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which gives precedence to the laws of the nation over those of respective states. The Supreme Court has routinely ruled in favor of the federal government on supremacy issues, and several legal experts who spoke with TIME said that nullification laws will probably not survive future court cases.

But that doesn’t mean states will stop trying. “Historically, nullification laws have been enacted at various points in time,” says Richard Levy, professor of constitutional law at the University of Kansas. “A lot of time when there are controversies and there’s an ideological polarization, nullification laws crop up, but historically they’ve never worked.


nation.time.com...

Now...please don't take offense...I am not speaking my opinion here...I am citing historical and legal facts...and I cited what actually happens with these laws...vs. you just saying stuff and opinions as if your thoughts were the same as reality.

I can be a flat earther and simply shout that claims of the earth being round is MSM Propaganda....Or I can set my personal opinions and personal wants aside and examine the scenario objectively.

I would argue one of those methods is a more intellectually healthy way to live.

This was a political ploy...if it survives a veto...it will be quickly slapped down in court....as every similar "Vote for us" ploy and pandering bill at the state level like this has been.

Try this...the NRA OPPOSED Missouri's first effort at this last year...and this year the NRA has declared itself "Neutral" on Missouri's effort and refused to support it...Answer me why?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   

SheopleNation
LMAO! I bet that puke bag witch Diane Feinstein is having a bad hair day after hearing about this! LMAO!

Hopefully she will come unhinged, and someone with authority will throw her into a mental asylum, and in the nearest padded room with a straight jacket strapped on.

That women is a dangerous, crack pot lunatic that needs to be locked up as soon as possible before she does anymore harm to The United States Constitution. ~$heopleNation
she carries too. as well as having guards. so she is a class AAA hypocrite as well an olympic class loon.
edit on 22-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

stormbringer1701

SheopleNation
LMAO! I bet that puke bag witch Diane Feinstein is having a bad hair day after hearing about this! LMAO!

Hopefully she will come unhinged, and someone with authority will throw her into a mental asylum, and in the nearest padded room with a straight jacket strapped on.

That women is a dangerous, crack pot lunatic that needs to be locked up as soon as possible before she does anymore harm to The United States Constitution. ~$heopleNation
she carries too. as well as having guards. so she is a class AAA hypocrite as well an olympic class loon.
edit on 22-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



I am unclear why the two positions are mutually exclusive? I own guns...and I am for stricter background checks...cuz I don't follow around my wife and children everywhere they go and even if I did, I take no joy in having to shoot some person who forgot to take their meds?

I have to believe that folks can understand this reality...The overwhelming Majority of Americans do not want to Ban all guns. The Vast majority of Americans DO want stricter background checks on gun sales.

Those are not mutually exclusive ideas.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Stricter background checks eh? You mean like if you post on a website like this, you can't own a firearm? Nope, no thanks.

I think you need to think a little more harder about the reality that you're suggesting my friend. ~$heopleNation



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Don't get me wrong. I applaud this.


But I worry that this sets the stage for division within our fragile, broken country.

In recent threads, I've seen a further desire to separate, divide, rather than unite.


I think you're taking far too much of a DC-view, and forgetting that the UNION was founded as independent states (back when that world ONLY meant 'sovereign nation')

The United States, was the original European Union, and states should have their own character, laws, customs, culture and even dialects.

This is a step in the right direction for our nation and will actually make it STRONGER. Forcing the Federalist/Centralist tactics has made our nation WEAKER.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:55 AM
link   

HomerinNC
reply to post by vor78
 





No, that would still be illegal. SB 613 contains a provision that would prohibit it.


I see, so MO interprets the 2nd amendment as they see fit
hypocrites


I wonder if your a felon....



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Do we have any antagonists of states rights here in this thread?

If there are any, can you please explain the tenth amendment? Let's not make this about guns, let's make this about states rights. Let's not go down this route of picking and choosing which bill of rights or it's sub-categories we want to protect and how about we choose to protect all of them as a whole? I strongly believe in the tenth amendment as much as the rest. This is NOT about guns.




The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.


Nullification was used to protect slaves from the federal government but it is also now being used to stop Obamacare (a conservative action) and promote marijuana legalization (a liberal action).



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Indeed good for them.

But what most gun control law advocates won't ever admit.

Is there is not a single 'gun control' law on the books that the previous LAWS against hurting/murdering others:

DOESNT ALREADY COVER !!!

But hey make more laws people aren't going to follow.

That will fix everything



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Just found this, it seems there are now political candidates running on the specific platforms of NULLIFICATION. Namely, NDAA nullification, NSA nullification, ETC...

Check this out:



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Too often people bring too much "baggage" into the States-right's vs. Federal-right's.

One of the very best reasons for the superiority of States-Right's is the vast and varied nature of the United States. The same goes for Canada where there is always a tug-of-war between the Provinces and Feds.

The fact of the matter is that each region has realities and traditions that it has to cope with when administrating their district. A central authority that pretends it knows New York as well as it does Hawaii or Alaska is either delusion or lying.

For the country to operate efficiently and fairly, strong States-right's are a must.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Leonidas
 


I agree with that 100% on states rights. In Missouri here, I can get myself a .50 Barrett long rifle, and the pawn shop down the road had one when I was last in there. $3,500. They always have some at the gun shows and the actual "Barrett" brand rifles are closer to $10,000 and up. I've been on the range when people showed up with them a couple times tho...and it's a real attention grabber but not for any law enforcement reasons.

On the other hand..I could well see the point of New Yorkers, as just one example, saying Hell No to something capable of actually shooting through and through a small wood frame house and still killing a man on the other side of it. That's where I'm just fine with the idea of state's rights where one area of the nation really is distinctly and significantly different for culture and local realities to what's normal and what's not acceptable.

To each there own, works real well.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The NRA doesn't support a lot of constitutional things, maybe because they are fake and being run by fence sitters?

My earlier statements still stand. A governor's veto is one thing, but my comments were about how the MSM acts like "courts" can defy the constitution and toss out a state effort's like Mo.'s

Also, I did not see this state action as interpreting the 2nd amendment by the state for it's citizens, but rather a statement that they won't honor any federal effort that attempts to "interpret" our 2nd amendment for us or them.

If this seems off base to you, it is because I have become completely fed up with that thing in the white house that calls itself an American, but is a monstrous tyrant wearing the disguise of a human being.
edit on 23-2-2014 by alienreality because: added



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 


You know good on them. I think the fed is just a laugh anyway, I mean it is going to change in two years anyway lol. Why folks get wrapped up in the fed cracks me up. Much more interested in what the state you live in does. That is what counts. Fed changes with every president lol.

The Bot



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join