As a United States citizen... why should I be subject to firearms laws of California,

a reply to: Gryphon66

Sure are avoiding the cake for the frosting.

Jim Crow? Unequal treatment?

And no, there are plenty examples. Federalized State National Guard units performing integration in Arkansas under the orders of the President ring a bell? I can give many, many more examples Battle of Blair Mountain, Bonus Army with Mac Arthur driving over the encampment with a tank. How about one right from the word go...Whiskey Rebellion, led by none other than the then President George Washington himself?

a reply to: Ahabstar

Is California in insurrection?

ETA: National guard units are a different matter, but you called for the Marines. It's not a nit-pick.

a reply to: EternalSolace

Most of the problems within the U.S. start in California.

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: EternalSolace

Most of the problems within the U.S. start in California.

Any quick examples?

Thank you kindly.

originally posted by: Phoenix

Its dead to liberals who use Federal Courts to FORCE their opinions upon various state populations who maintain other opinions such as constitutional carry, abortion, property rights and a slew of other subjects using federal supremacy as a basis.

In other words anything your right leaning bias does not agree with? Its so funny some of you are all about states rights until they seem contrary to ones political lean.........

SCOTUS has picked its way through a variety of states laws and while it has struck down many that were obviously unconstitutional it has simultaneously affirmed the ability fo states to regulate firearms to some degree:

D.C. vs Heller is a prime example...............

originally posted by: FredT
SCOTUS has picked its way through a variety of states laws and while it has struck down many that were obviously unconstitutional it has simultaneously affirmed the ability fo states to regulate firearms to some degree:

D.C. vs Heller is a prime example...............

Well said. I mentioned that earlier.

I also think that the concept of dual-sovreignty is lost on many.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: EternalSolace

I've wondered that myself..

How do states legalize a federally illegal drug?

How do states criminalize firearm ownership?

They ignore the current law of the constitution and pretend it doesn't exist, then they instruct everyone else on their payroll to do the same or else. Proves even more the reason for the second amendment is not for target practice or hunting.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: EternalSolace

I've wondered that myself..

How do states legalize a federally illegal drug?

How do states criminalize firearm ownership?

They ignore the current law of the constitution and pretend it doesn't exist, then they instruct everyone else on their payroll to do the same or else. Proves even more the reason for the second amendment is not for target practice or hunting.

Your post seems to have gotten very coy at the end ... can you tell us exactly what this proves the real reason for the Second Amendment to be?

Thank you kindly if so.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
They ignore the current law of the constitution and pretend it doesn't exist, then they instruct everyone else on their payroll to do the same or else. Proves even more the reason for the second amendment is not for target practice or hunting.

That's not really true no?

As I mentioned above if you look at the Supreme Court of the United States rulings on the matter they have both supported the "right" to bear arms, but have also mentioned the ability to regulate the firearms on a State and Federal level.

Scalia himself in the DC vs. Heller case that the court (SCOTUS) "recognized limitations on the right to keep and carry arms"

SO if the voters of a state elect leaders that then enact more restrictive gun laws that can and have survived legal challenges, how exactly is that ignoring the the Bill of Rights

In that light and given the inability of the extremes on either side (ALL GUNS ALL THE TIME vs NO GUNS) to meet at some reasonable middle ground we will continue to have a somewhat patchwork state by state gun laws.

originally posted by: FredT

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
They ignore the current law of the constitution and pretend it doesn't exist, then they instruct everyone else on their payroll to do the same or else. Proves even more the reason for the second amendment is not for target practice or hunting.

That's not really true no?

As I mentioned above if you look at the Supreme Court of the United States rulings on the matter they have both supported the "right" to bear arms, but have also mentioned the ability to regulate the firearms on a State and Federal level.

Scalia himself in the DC vs. Heller case that the court (SCOTUS) "recognized limitations on the right to keep and carry arms"

SO if the voters of a state elect leaders that then enact more restrictive gun laws that can and have survived legal challenges, how exactly is that ignoring the the Bill of Rights

In that light and given the inability of the extremes on either side (ALL GUNS ALL THE TIME vs NO GUNS) to meet at some reasonable middle ground we will continue to have a somewhat patchwork state by state gun laws.

Yes I should have elaborated better why I said those things. I have only noticed the spotty, but still significant ignoring of the constitution here and there, sometimes it's point blank in the news where some judge or congress, state congresses do end runs around the constitution to remove protections of rights, or just write laws that are later tossed out by law abiding federal judges. So it's hit and miss, or it is ignored and sticks in many cases too.

Also with the language and actual voices heard in the news by gun grabbers and others wanting to censor speech, we see that the desire to do these things that conflict with the constitution and bill of rights is not seeming to go away any time soon. It's scary because it is escalating and progressing.

a reply to: Gryphon66 Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Crips, Bloods, Surenos, Nortenos, The Kardashians, just to name a few.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

States are in fact separate sovereigns from the Federal government and anything not reserved specifically to the federal government is reserved to the states.

Secondly the full faith and credit clause of the constitution says legal documents etc from one state must be recognized by all other states (Drivers license, marriages etc etc). However Congress defines whats covered under that clause and firearms are not one. States have reciprocal agreements with other states recognizing each others gun laws (IE concealed carry).

If you live in California you are subject to their laws.
If you live in Maine and visit California you are still subject to their laws.

Supreme Court rulings over the years have always allowed states to regulate firearm with the most recent one being the ruling in Heller.

The US Congress has looked at a federal law that would allow CCW holders to carry regardless of the state they reside in but it did not get much support.

a reply to: EternalSolace

So basically what you're saying is you want to lawfully go in to California and shoot commies as you see fit...legally....Good luck with that ...

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: EternalSolace

So basically what you're saying is you want to lawfully go in to California and shoot commies as you see fit...legally....Good luck with that ...

Your heroes on the left "antifa" want to be able to do that, weve seen you supporting them on numerous threads, only they call them fascists.

You seem to have some bias amnesia, or at the very least youre a hypocrite

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: EternalSolace

So basically what you're saying is you want to lawfully go in to California and shoot commies as you see fit...legally....Good luck with that ...

Your heroes on the left "antifa" want to be able to do that, weve seen you supporting them on numerous threads, only they call them fascists.

You seem to have some bias amnesia, or at the very least youre a hypocrite

Um really, well do show us the evidence Mr mason....

Just between you and me I think you're full of #...

a reply to: SailorJerry

Your assinine accusation is worth another jab, you're another moron wanting a civil war, you're lack of self awareness has allowed a sub grade entertainment network like fox dupe you into seeing commies everywhere you go, my anti trump stance is enough for you to go full retard every Time I post...never go full retard...c'mon man get with t the program.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

Because America is a union of states, and each state is guaranteed a high level of autonomy under the constitution. The same thing that allows CA to restrict gun usage also allows other states to choose to have relaxed gun laws.

Things like gun ownership should be decided locally and reflect the will of the local population. Not be imposed from above by washington.

If things were decided federally then what would stop a Liberal administration from imposing harsh restrictions on the entire country?

a reply to: Gryphon66

ATF, it's their mandate to enforce. If he'd coopt local swat.