Alabama Senate Votes To Ignore New Federal Gun Laws


The Alabama State legislature is warning the federal government and other to back off on gun control legislation. On Tuesday, the Alabama State Senate passed legislation that declared "All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the Second Amendment."

The vote was 24-6 and also declared that all federal laws in violation of the Second Amendment (which are all of them) would be considered null and void in Alabama.

Republican Senator Paul Sanford of Huntsville confirmed that the legislation was the result of hundreds of emails and calls he received from his constituents in north Alabama. Those constituents were concerned about the threatening manner in which Congress has been hell-bent on gun control legislation. Especially new gun restrictions, including a ban on multiple weapons, such as Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had put forth.

Democrats tried to save face. Senator Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro) denied nullification. ""This bill is null and void on its face," Singleton said. Perhaps Mr. Singleton should pay attention to Founding Father James Madison on nullification, instead of the liberals he got his thinking from.

Fox News reports,

In the House Tuesday, members voted 76-22 for a proposed constitutional amendment that would require Alabama's courts to use "strict scrutiny" when reviewing any new gun control laws. That would require proponents of the laws to show a compelling interest for the regulations and that they be narrowly tailored.

The Second Amendment bill sponsored by Republican Rep. Mike Jones of Andalusia was part of the "We Dare Defend Our Rights" agenda that the House Republican Caucus set for the 2013 session. To take effect, the bill still must be passed by the Senate and approved by Alabama voters in a statewide referendum.

In the Senate, Sanford said he was not trying to declare all federal gun laws void. Instead, he said he hoped that if Congress were to pass gun controls, the legislation would permit the state attorney general to issue an opinion that the law was unconstitutional and then Alabama law enforcement officers could refrain from enforcing it.

Sanford indicated that he was not attempting to declare all federal gun laws void. I don't understand why not, since that is exactly what they are. The Constitution refers to the Federal government and specifically indicates the rights of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Infringed by whom? The Federal government. What's difficult to understand about this?

Mr. Sanford, who carries his gun regularly said, referring to new gun control legislation that Congress may pass in which the state attorney general might declare it unconstitutional, "We are going to declare it null and void and not participate with the federal government."

Sanford's bill would have to be passed by the House and the signed by the governor to become law. Getting it passed in the House will be difficult due to the fact that there are only four meeting days left in the 2013 session.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Print Friendly





Comments

comments

  • http://twitter.com/luvcats13 luvcats13

    This is ridiculous and I am ASHAMED of Alabama joining the GOP in its hard right turn to pander to radical politics. The 2nd amendment also uses the term "well regulated" and submitting to a background check does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. If you believe in the US Constitution, then you know the US Supreme Court determines what laws are constitutional and which ones are unconstitutional. And the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is appropriate to regulate gun ownership. The insistence by this nutty author that ANY law on arms is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment means he'd be ok with the local gangbangers carrying grenade launchers and having nuclear arms.

    • Republicae

      @ luvcats13: It is common for many people, like yourself and especially politicians and judges, to think of the Constitution in fragmented terms, isolating this part and that part to suit the particular needs of any given situation however, the entire Constitution is, when properly construed, consistent throughout. If we take the Bill of Rights, for instance, those Amendments do not add or subtract anything from the Original Constitution, the fact is that they were already Rights prior to the writing and ratification of the Constitution. The federal government ONLY POSSESSES those powers delegated to it, this fact is evident in Article 1, Section 1 when it declares those powers to be VESTED in Congress. The word VESTED is defined as FIXED, meaning the powers of Congress are cannot be based on any contingency authority except those which are expressly delegated, this, by definition, would exclude the idea that there can be a broad interpretation of implied powers available to Congress.

      The structure of the entire Constitution is articulated concisely within the 10th Amendment, it defines the foundation of limited government, it reinforces the doctrine of the federal system that the Constitutional Compact, agreed to and ratified as a Contract between the States, created. It is not merely that the 10th Amendment acts as a barrier against federal intrusions on the liberties of the individual and the authority of the States, the 10th Amendment expounds the entire Constitutional Compact of federalism. Without doubt, the Congress and Supreme Court have used an extremely broad interpretation through the doctrine of implied powers, yet there is no other principle that serves as the foundation of the entire purpose and plan of the original Constitution and it is fully expressed in the 10th Amendment. That principle is that the federal government only possesses those powers that are specifically delegated to it by the Constitution and no others. When the Framers wrote the 10th Amendment, all they were doing was reiterating the entire principle upon which the government of the United States rests.

      The Constitutional Compact, created by the States, deputized the federal government and delegated to it certain limited and enumerated powers. Many of the Framers believed that since those powers were indeed limited and were enumerated within the Constitution that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and could, in fact, cause several issues in the future due to the specificity of the Bill of Rights. They were concerned that the Bill of Rights would be interpreted as the only Rights or that they would be used to limit the Rights of the People and the States through a broader interpretation that there were no other negatives issued against federal powers except those first 10 Amendments. Of course, the 9th Amendment, the sister to the 10th, gave an extremely broader view of the Rights reserved to the People, explaining that there were Rights that were not enumerated within the Constitution, but were nonetheless, just as as exacting as though they were enumerated.

      Therefore, since it is completely impossible to list all the Rights of the Citizens of these States united in a Compact of Union, there exist Rights that the government cannot define or legislate to contravene. The fact that there is an absence of those Rights enumerated does not, in any sense or construction, deny the fact that those Rights do indeed exist and are just as inalienable and therefore, un-restrainable as those that are enumerated within the Bill of Rights. Indeed, James Madison stated: ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''

      The solution to this potential problem is the 9th Amendment to the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Of course, the 9th Amendment has been essentially ignored by the Courts, and, I might add by those who, for whatever reason, would deny all manner of Rights to other Americans. This denial of Rights has occurred on both the right and the left of the political spectrum. It is therefore, beyond doubt that the Framers of the Constitution believed and asserted that there are additional fundamental rights, that are protected from governmental infringement, which exist along with those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight Amendments to the Constitution.

      Since the Constitution only conferred those limited powers that are enumerated in the Constitution itself, it was assumed that the federal government could not reach beyond that which was granted to it. The Framers of the Constitution, using the normal rules of statutory construction, insisted that by forbidding the federal government within certain areas, would allow it to act in areas that were not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. The remedy to such a possibility was the 10th Amendment, which is a bulwark against the government using implied powers to deny or restrain the limitation of any of the Bill of Rights. Thus, as a statutory construction or interpretation, this rule, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, prevents the inference that the Bill of Rights might, in an instance of misconstrued interpretation, imply that the federal government has powers other than those enumerated, and as such, could be used by the government to limit or infringe upon the Rights declared within the Bill of Rights.

      Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Dallas 304 at 308 (U.S. Cir. Ct. Pa.1795)
      "What is the Constitution? It is a form of government delineated by the mighty hand of the People in which certain first principles of fundamental law are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed: it contains the permanent will of the People, and is the Supreme Law of the Land; it is Paramount to the will of the legislature, and can be revoked only by the Authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand. What are legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution; they derive their powers from the Constitution. It is their commission ; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be Void. The Constitution is the Will of the People themselves in their original, Sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work of the legislature in their subordinate and derivative capacity. The one is the work of the creator, and the other of the creature. The Constitution fixes the limits to the exercise of the legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all legislative, executive, and judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case with other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt that every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution if ABSOLUTELY VOID."

      There is no Constitutional coercion of the States, the States of this Union voluntarily acceded to it as an act of Sovereignty and in accordance to the Will of the People of each of the Several States. Being parties in a voluntary act, they could not, by any measure, be made involuntary parties through ratifying the Constitution, [which they are sole party to] and thereby joining this Union of States. The federal Constitution, as a stipulated Treaty between separate Sovereign States, was an instrument used by the States to settle potential foreign issues, to mediate issues arising between the States. In a very real sense, the Constitution is, as spoken of by many of the Framers, a Treaty between Sovereign Nations that chose to join in a Union based on federalism. Essentially, the Constitution legally displaced what would normally be international law pro tanto. The status, as far as the law of nations is concerned, of the States is Sovereign political bodies, each Free and Independent of the other, though within our Constitution instead of the description being labeled “nations” they are titled States. If this Treaty, this Constitution was annulled, the States would resume their full capacity in terms of their legal sphere of action as actual Nations of the world.

      If any power used by this federal government is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution and the States are not specifically prohibited by the Constitution from exercising said power, then that power was reserved to the States, not to the federal government which is nothing more than a deputized agent of the States, acting in the Sovereign capacity of the People of the Several States.

      William Davie, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from North Carolina in defending the so-called "supremacy clause: clearly stated the correct interpretation: "This Constitution, as to the powers therein granted, is constantly to be the supreme law of the land. Every power ceded by it must be executed without being counteracted by the laws or constitutions of the individual states. Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations."

      John Marshall, later Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, stated, in Convention: “Those who give, may take away. It is the people that give power,and can take it back; what shall restrain them? They are the masters who gave it, and of whom the servants hold it. Are not Congress and the State legislatures agents of the People?”

      James Wilson, who held position in both the federal convention and the convention for the State of Pennsylvania stated what could be considered the most concise statement on the subject: “The SUPREME, ABSOLUTE AND UNCONTROLLABLE POWER IS IN THE PEOPLE before they make the Constitution, and remains in them after it is made...The absolute SOVEREIGNTY never goes from the People.”

      Even the nationalist Daniel Webster admitted the fact that: “The SOVEREIGNTY of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thing is known in North America: with us ALL POWER IS WITH THE PEOPLE. THEY ALONE ARE SOVEREIGN; and will erect what governments they please and confer on them such power as they please. NONE of these governments is sovereign.”

      There is not a single hint in any of the writings of those who crafted and founded our Republic, that the federal government, nor even the State governments could or would have any inherent power or sovereignty. The States, being the expression of the People residing in those States bear the closest character of Sovereignty, the federal government bears no such character and acts on behalf of the States as merely an deputized agent, nothing more. The assumption is that the only Rights are those reserved to the States, but demonstrated in numerous writings, the People of the Several States are, in fact, Sovereign; as such, it is the People that have the Right of self-government, self-determination and, acting upon that Sovereignty, they can, through the States, recall their authority and power at any time, whether through the Constitutional process or Revolutionary process. Nullification, in its most elemental form is nothing more than the People exercising their Inherent Power as Sovereigns. Ordinaces of Nullification must be enforced with accompanying Ordinaces of Secession, giving the full import and intent of the People to defy all manner and means of illegitimate governance; defending what remains of this Republic and in the process, restoring it. This is, I fear, our last chance to regain this country and restore the Constitutional Republic as it once stood so many decades ago.

      When the State of Massachusetts ratified the Constitution of these united States of America the wording was incontrovertible, they are no less valid today than when they were penned:

      “That the people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive Right of governing themselves, as a Free, Sovereign, and Independent State; and they will Forever exercise every Power and Right, which may not be by them Expressly Delegated to the united States, assembled in Congress;

      That all Power, residing originally in the People, and being derived from them, all officers of government are their Substitutes and Agents, and are at all times Accountable to them;

      And, finally, that the People of the commonwealth alone, have an inalienable and indefeasible Right to institute government, and to reform, alter or totally change the same, whenever they think their safety and happiness require it.”

      Before the Declaration of Independence, the Thirteen Colonies were little more than provinces of the Crown, ruled and governed by the supreme power of the Crown. It is therefore, far beyond belief that the Framers of the Constitution would create a government that would subjugate the States into a similar status as they fought to gain independence, indeed, they did not. Today, the federal government has assumed the position of the Crown, with absolute supremacy that is enforced through various means of coercion and has been enforced, in the past, through the spilling of precious blood.

      This government, this regime, changed itself, through force, from a deputized agency into a sovereign, the very thing our Fathers fought so vigorously from which to free this People. This Union is just that, a Union between Free, Sovereign and Independent States; this Union is not the federal government, indeed, America is not the federal government. The States meet in Congress Assembled, Congress is, or should be, the Voice of the States, not the federal government, nor is Congress employed by the federal government, although that is indeed the perverted functionary of Congress today, corrupted by powers stolen, usurped and the Law abridged.

      The States did nothing more than federalize themselves, they did this to create a far more efficient government than that formed under the Articles of Confederation of 1778. In terms of the federal government, the purpose was extremely limited, primarily the purpose of deputizing the federal government was to act as one voice in foreign affairs, to act as a mediator between the States and the Citizens of different States, and it was to act as an agency to act for the common cause of all the individual States, but very little more. The Constitution however, was not perfect in its construction, for it was open to interpretations that gave rise to the heretical stance of implied powers, loosely translating those expressed powers, the delegated authority into a perverted open-ended albatross around the necks of the Several States that created it, entrapping them and placing upon them the burden of federal coercion and forced unity.

      The Constitution of the united States was an adjunct to the Constitutions of the Several States, respective of the fundamental Laws of the States themselves. The purpose of federalizing was to avoid consolidation, the very thing that happened during the 1860s with the perversion of every Constitutional edict and principle by the federal government under the hands of corruption and vile treason. Rather than the Union being saved, the Union based on federalism, based on a republican government, was rendered outlaw, the Constitution utterly morphed into a nationalistic shell, a facade hollowed out and rendered ineffectual in terms of original Law.

      In the character and nature of federalism as Article VII of the Constitution, inferentially concludes and thus proves the fact that the States, being Free, Sovereign and Independent remain so after ratifying, take notice: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”; This ratification, being voluntary in nature and character rather than compulsory, only declared that those ratifying it were the only ones affected by it, thus it only took 9 of those States to ratify the Constitution, but those which did not were not forced to comply, they remained outside of the newly formed government. Had this Constitution and therefore, the Union it created been as compulsory as Lincoln asserted, then the remaining States would have been compelled to join, they were not because that was not the manner and means by which this voluntary Union as crafted.

      In the system of federalism, the States would send Ambassadors to the Congress Assembled, those Ambassadors were Senators, the Ambassadors of the People, Representatives. As with foreign nations, so too were the States, sending those who best serve in the interest of the individual States, acting on their behalf and on the behalf of the People of the Several States. Until the perversion of the Senate with the passage of the 17th Amendment, which nationalized the Senate, Senators represented the Sovereignty of the States they served and the Senate itself was to act as a bulwark, preserving the Sovereignty of their respective States. There is ample evidence within The Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, that the Framers considered the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives, in the manner described.

      We must remember that at one time, the Citizens of the Several States thought of their individual States as their countries, the federal government was nothing more than the deputy of the States and the Union was simply the expression of the Association between the Several States. They did not view this country in the terms that arose later, meaning “one nation”, their Allegiance was to their States, they could not swear Allegiance to anything higher than the highest Sovereignty in the Land, which was and is the States. The federal government was merely entitled to obedience under the Constitution to only those powers delegated to it, but that was the full extent of any consideration of the federal government. In fact, you would not have seen the Stars and Stripes fly over any State, only the flags of the individual States flew over them. It was only until much, much later, actually in the late 1800s that the flag of the United States was, somehow, forced upon the States. It was the flag that denoted only the deputized agent of the States and was only flown over federal territories, military installations, and Naval vessels, but not over the Sovereign States, for there was not valid recognition of that flag as being over anything other than federally controlled territories.

      Patriotism, another misused and abused term that has been essentially nationalized, just as the flag, was, for the Citizens, toward their individual States, but not a deputized agent of the States.

      Long since has such Patriotism been subverted, diverted to a subordinate functionary by the political tricksters preaching the fanatical religion of unionology, bowing down to Washington, D.C. as though to Mecca, sacrificing the Constitution to the doctrine of nationalism. It is absolutely impossible to have two separate Sovereignties, the only Sovereignty is that of the People acting and expressing that Sovereignty through the Several States. A deputized agent that has limited power and limited authority cannot be Sovereign, only represent the Sovereign that deputized it.

      When the British Crown was displaced by Independence, each of the former Colonies were recognized by the Crown as Free, Sovereign and Independent States, not as a nation, but as separate, individual Nations or Republics. Since that event of Sovereign displacement, the People have retained that Sovereign Status, expressed within the States therefore, it is the most fundamental principle that governs These States united, that the Absolute Right is Inherent, not in some deputized federal government, but in the People as expressed through the States where they reside. This principle points to the fact that there is no such thing as a Republic unless the People continue in their Sovereignty and can exercise the Solemn Right of Self-Government. The People, in their Sovereign Capacity never organized anything directly except the governments of the States themselves, the States then, acting on behalf of the People of the Respective States, crafted and delegated certain limited powers and authority to the federal government as a deputized agent but nothing, absolutely nothing more.

      Republicae

  • http://www.facebook.com/todd.pollard.50 Todd Pollard
  • Denise

    Good for Alabama! I love to see States stand up to the squatters in Washington.

  • http://www.facebook.com/pat.thompson.94402 Pat Thompson

    Alabama State Motto: "We Dare Defend our Rights"

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Stan-Parrish/100000098813815 Stan Parrish

    Good for Alabama. The states should step up when the federal government gets too big for its britches by passing unconstitutional laws.

  • http://www.facebook.com/leprecaun14456 Robert Myles

    Go Bama, Call your reps now people of Alabama get this done and show Obama he is not a king and cannot simply wave the Ssecond Amendment into a Right that no longer exists

  • http://www.facebook.com/rnslarkin Ron Larkin

    Thank you Alabama for doing the right thing. I just hope Michigan does something like it.

    • David Gould

      I think that every state in the United States should do like-wise.I too am from Michigan and we should follow Alabamas lead.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000190583881 John OMalia

    Alabama can do what they did and it is legal to do so up to the point a federal court might get involved. At that point the federal government might attempt to blackmail the state by withholding funds. Then the courts would again get involved. Then another threshold would be reached if the State withheld sending anything to Washington to only be withheld from the State, again the courts would get involved, This all might sound convoluted but in effect the state would secede from any involvement with the federal government without actually suceeding.

    If other States followed suite the federal government would not be able to continue to deficit spend and the States would have to rely on their own resources, resources not sent into the feds.

    The federal legislature has no way to enforce its laws. The courts have no way to do it either. Boots on the ground in the form of federal troops, marshalls etc would be needed. And then you'd be butting heads with local sheriffs and the state national guard.

    No matter what you called it, you'd have a State in the state of rebellion. All caused by the states affirming their rights seized by the feds. The ultimate authority to govern still rests with the governed and the States in spite of what the current batch of Federalists believe. The federal government can only survive if it has voluntary compliance from the governed. They can't lock everybody up much less even get to everybody who are protected by the State and local law enforcement officers. Just my own opinion but that is the way I see nullification.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rachel-Guess/100001271026565 Rachel Guess

      You are absolutely correct, but this issue would be kept out of the courts by liberals any way they could. "Shall not be abridged" makes it a pretty easy ruling. What Skippy was saying above about the Supremacy Clause was utter nonsense. The Supremacy Clause only applies to CONSTITUTIONAL laws, in other words those laws actually specified in the US Constitution, such as the 2nd Amendment reading 'shall not be abridged'. She seems to think that all federal laws are given rank as a Constitutional law. You can't fix stupid...LOL

  • Patriot Games

    More from Marbury vs. Madison (1803):

    "Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument"

  • Patriot Games

    Marbury vs. Madison (1803) - The Supreme Court of the U.S. stated -

    "... that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."

  • freedomringsforall

    Yeah!

  • Tony

    All fed laws regarding gun control null and void. I seem to remember AL defying segregation awhile back. Don't mess with Bama. You can pass all the laws you want but you won't take their guns away.

  • SkippingDog

    A clear violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This law won't survive its first court appearance.

    • fliteking

      The purpose of the Bill flies easily over Skippy's head.

      A quick review of skip's previous posts reveals a a need to demonize others based on their religious and political beliefs. Skippy is proud she has managed to fully adopt the intolerance and hatred of the liberals while blaming others of the same behavior.

    • SkippingDog

      You're mistaken, fliteking. I don't demonize others at all, but merely point out the legal or logical flaws in their claims if needed. I also make of point of correcting inaccurate information many of you post, which I understand you might believe is some kind of personal attack. It's not at all.

    • Old Wolf

      However, the supremacy clause does not matter, in this particular case. Article 6 requires that the powers exerted be in pursuance of the powers granted in the constitution. If the power is explicitly denied, then there can be no power that is its basis that is lawful. That is the nature of an absolute prohibition, you cannot get around it by giving a different excuse or calling it a different name... it is the power that is prohibited, no matter its form, no matter its reasoning, and it is void from its inception, as a thing outside the powers of government.

    • SkippingDog

      It really doesn't matter, since our government system is one of dual sovereignty. Federal firearms laws will remain federal law, enforceable by federal law enforcement agencies, federal prosecutors, and the federal courts. Any claim of exemption from federal laws by a state court would be rejected.

      The State of Alabama has no authority to prevent federal officials from enforcing federal laws, no matter what state laws they pass. If Alabama instructed its state officers to interfere with the enforcement of federal law, it would demonstrate one of the prime reasons a President has the authority to federalize the State Militia (or the Alabama National Guard in this case) to put down the rebellion, as authorized by Article II, Section II of the Constitution and the Militia and National Guard Acts, beginning with the first one in 1792 and extending to Militia Act of 1903, which forms the basis of our current NG structures and authority.

      You rebels seem to try this nonsense every couple of decades, so it will be nice to see your streets filled with federal officers and military people once again.

    • Old Wolf

      *chuckles* But there are other federal laws involved in this particular issue, and specifically regarding rights under the law. There are laws that are unenforceable for being felonies under federal law. Federal firearms law is one such. The federal militia was engaged due to the fact that the state of Alabama was in direct violation of a specific federal law, and the courts of that state had ceased to function. It was within a specific set of powers, used under the 14th amendment.

      You claim, sir, that i am a rebel, but all I am doing is citing the law. If the federal government is forbidden to do a thing, they cannot do it. It is not within their power. That was the impetus for the first revolution. What I am doing is citing a superior law, a law for which a constitutional amendment was passed after the end of the Civil War, which the Democrat party tried to filibuster, and attempted again to filibuster in 1960, and tried to overturn with the national firearms act of 1968, again outside of enforceable law.

      According to that law, it was made a felony for anyone to enforce, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, any deprivation of rights for any person in any state, territory, district or possession. A second felony act, and a separate one under that law, was the creation of different punishments, pains, or penalties established solely on race or alien status. This law is still on the books, under title 18, section 242 of the US code. Title 18, section 3 of that code forbids failing to act upon the felony, as being accessory to the act, and title 18, section 4 requires both reporting the act, and prosecuting it, or becoming an accessory subject to punishment.

      This law is well settled. Monroe v. Pape was quite clear, along with the Screws v. Classic case. The enforcement of this law was the reason behind the Alabama incident, and rightfully so.

      However, the president is not above that law either. Should the president engage in acts of force, for the purpose of deprivation of rights, or any other agent, contracted or ordered by him, he is in violation of that law. It is a general law.
      The right is simple, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The prefacatory clause has nothing to do with the right, only establishes a power to determine what weapons may be brought forth specifically for military service. There is a recent court case on the subject, McDonald v. Chicago, from the Supreme court, admitting it as an individual right enforceable against the states and federal government alike.
      It does not matter if you like the issue, it is what the law is. It is one of the privileges and immunities spoken of under article 4 of the constitution which the states may not deprive, as well as a right enforceable against the federal government.
      It is disingenous to suggest otherwise, or to suggest that it is rebellion to insist that the law, and the prohibitions of the law be followed. That vesting of the right, and establishment of a protected property interest therein to all persons within the US borders under that Civil Rights act at the end of the civil war should have prevented the enforceability for a lot of the ugliness that followed with the KKK. However, the Democrat party protected its own, and still claims that it is somehow racist to want to share the rights among all people, in spite of their position being in direct opposition to the law of the land, and a good many republicans have chosen the same path today, due to their miseducation.
      The law was passed because people wishing to integrate the ex-slaves, and the ex-slaves themselves were being denied rights, being harassed for their exercise, killed and imprisoned without trial, or under arbitrary laws. It was a direct denial of any power to do the thing, and then the fourteenth amendment was passed, after the supreme court found insufficient power under the thirteenth to enforce the law. That law was then passed again and strengthened.
      It has not, according to the Supreme court, lost power merely for having lain fallow for many years. It is still the law, and no person may transgress it, save at their own peril. No office offers immunity, nor does any contract with the governnment or any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom offer the power to do those things the law forbids, i.e. the willful deprivation of rights under the color of law.
      Is it nonsense to insist that the law be enforced, or more nonsense to insist that rights are not rights, and may be stripped by the mere operation of law, when there is no power, and an absolute prohibition against doing so?

    • SkippingDog

      If you really believe that nonsense, or the controlling force of the cases you cite now, then you should engage in civil disobedience and obtain some firearms or destructive devices that are illegal under federal law and test it out. Do you really believe your argument would hold any water during your trial for violating the NFA or any of our current statutes preventing you from owning an unlicensed machine gun, silencer, or a hand grenade?

      You're just a concern troll who thinks he's cute.

    • http://twitter.com/HiddenDesigns Jared Mobley

      The balance of powers was crafted to prevent universal control by any branch of the government. You seem to have some sort of fetish for the Federal and a complete disdain for the State. The Federal government was never designed to rule as an absolute monarchy.

      I have no idea why you would pledge unwavering fealty to a group of people (pertaining to the Fed and your idea that they have absolute power) who want nothing more than your money and vote so that they may continue to fatten their purses.

      You'll never disarm the citizens of the United States of America. I'm sorry, as much as we all know you love the Fed, it will simply never happen.

      Did you also know that more people die from secondhand smoke every year than they do from gun homicides? Over fives times as many people actually. Go wage a war against smokers/smoking and leave the upstanding gun-owners alone.

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.thornton.7503 John Thornton

      Jared, you got that right.

    • SkippingDog

      The balance of powers was created in our Constitution to prevent any one branch of our government from amassing overwhelming power. Your idea that a state has sufficient sovereignty to ignore or nullify a federal law is not supported by our history or legal precedent. If Alabama or any other state decides it will not follow federal law, it will effectively be in a state of rebellion. Our Constitution not only gives the President the authority to call out the militia (or National Guard) to put down such a challenge to federal authority, but it also gives him or her the power to take even more aggressive steps, such as suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, during such a rebellion.

      Is that really the path you are encouraging people to take?

    • BillinDetroit

      Actually, by the time things get to that point, the only laws in force will be the laws of war.

      The President already HAS the power to suspend a Writ of Habeas Corpus even ABSENT a rebellion. That we might lose that right as the result of rebellion is a moot point ... it has already been suspended whenever any American cannot invoke it at will. If the Writ of Habeas Corpus is not a reliable right, it is not a right at all but a privilege to be dispensed at the whim of the President.

    • SkippingDog

      There are no laws of war that apply to a civil war.

      Clearly your participation in an armed rebellion or civil war will make you an enemy combatant, subject to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (signed into law by President George W. Bush). In that circumstance, the writ may be unavailable to you. As an enemy combatant, you should not have access to our civil courts in any event.

    • countyguard

      Man, what a good slave you've become... ignorant, but good. You are clueless on what you are speaking about. The "armed rebellion" you speak of... ever read the Declaration of Independence?

      "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Taken from http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/.

      You might also try reading the Constitution itself to see how far off base you are in your claimed knowledge of the same. The federal government is criminally outside its jurisdiction, and needs to be placed back into it. This included the IRS and other criminal agencies... http://foundationfortruthinlaw.org/PDF/Jeffrey-T-Maehr-v-Internal-Revenue-Service-US-Supreme-Court-S.pdf.

      Knowledge is power, and ignorance only serves those who don't want us to wake up and understand what they have done. The People are waking up. cspoa.org

    • SkippingDog

      So, are you advocating armed violence against the U.S. government?

    • Old Wolf

      And you've shown yourself to be the exact type of tyrant that would be more than happy to use force to remove the rights and property of others. I stated the law, you say the law does not matter. Which of us is in rebellion?

    • SkippingDog

      No, I didn't say the law doesn't matter. I said that the cases you chose to cherry-pick and cite don't have controlling authority. If you want to test that hypothesis, go ahead and do it. Just don't whine about the personal consequences coming your way.

    • countyguard

      Skippy, you don't understand what you are saying. You ask someone to "test" their position... in a system where the federal government has matastasized into a beast that is the school yard bully now. However, if you ever chose to to do some research into how many people and groups are standing up to this bully and winning, this might help. Yes, there is risk in facing lawlessness in government, but look around... People are waking up, so perhaps there is hope for you as well.

    • SkippingDog

      Nobody is standing up or winning anything with it comes to paying your taxes or complying with federal gun laws. The way to test that is to violate the law and then see if you can get it overturned by the courts. Good luck.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000190583881 John OMalia

      There was a civil dialogue going on until you decided that name calling could win a debate over the powers of persuasion. And I find that when someone is losing a debate that is what they resort to, childish name calling. Incidentally, only cowards hides behiind some icon and pseudo name.

    • SkippingDog

      There was no name calling, John. I merely suggested that he put his money where his mouth is if he really believed the stuff he was claiming. Even in a civil dialogue, there comes a time to call BS when someone leaves the bounds of rational discussion. Suggesting that a state has the right to ignore federal laws or has the authority to simply ignore such federal requirements has no basis in law or history.

    • BillinDetroit

      The basis in history was acquired by force ... exactly the response you are predicting would be taken again.

    • SkippingDog

      But acquired it was.

    • http://www.facebook.com/leprecaun14456 Robert Myles

      Molon Labe

    • SkippingDog

      No reason to. You'll comply with the law on your own, unless you're not a law abiding person.

    • Sunshine Kid

      You're playing from a power base, not a fact base. The fact is that the Federal government does make the laws and is the power, but the Federal laws are in conflict with guarantees by the Bill of Rights, WHICH HAVE NEVER BEEN REPEALED.

    • SkippingDog

      The role of our federal courts is to test exactly the claim you are making. The laws that don't pass constitutional muster are regularly reversed by our federal courts. Even the 1st Amendment has had clear limitations places on its exercise, so your claim doesn't really make much factual, legal, or historical sense.

    • Old Wolf

      Concern troll? You at this point have not applied a single fact, only opinions, have not applied citations. The most modern case on the 242, and title 42, section 1983 issues is McDonald v. Chicago, 2010.

      "In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong. Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
      “Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.” Ibid."

      "In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14.

      We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Opinion of the Court Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."

    • SkippingDog

      What did the court say about unusual weapons, destructive devices, military weapons, and the owner licensing programs brought up in the case?

    • Old Wolf

      Straw man, but that would be a case earlier under the earlier US v. Miller, and Heller v. District of Columbia. The Miller test was requiring that the weapons themselves be weapons applicable to military service, i.e. weapons of the same style and ability for combat to provide for the common defense.

      As the milita itself extends to all able bodied persons under the Uniform Code of MIlitary Justice, comprising the uniformed milita, the organized armed forces, and the ununiformed milita, The weapons thus specified must be in common use in the militaries of the time.

    • Old Wolf

      and regarding licenses, that they were not approached by the court as such relief was not requested.

    • SkippingDog

      That's because the plaintiff had already agreed that the licensing requirement was constitutional, rendering the point moot.

    • SkippingDog

      I'm sure you can show us where your claim about the militia is embodied into law in either the Militia Act of 1903 or the National Defense Act of 1947.

      No? I thought so.

    • Old Wolf

      Well, if you're going to claim I can't before I've even responded, I'm not certain I should bother even responding to you. But in this particular instance, it's article 10, section 311 of the US code, definining the militia. It says nothing about being non-felon, or any other group. In fact, many soldiers fought during several wars to escape the clutch of felony charges.
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
      males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
      313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
      declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
      and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
      National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are -

      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
      and the Naval Militia; and

      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
      the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
      Naval Militia.
      The next question is for you. Where in the phrase 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' does it say 'except for x purpose, or as punishment for a crime'?
      May congress strip citizenship from an individual to punish a crime?
      Are lawbreakers persons under the purpose of the law?
      If they are not persons, what jurisdiction does the law hold over them, for the law deals in persons, and property, and nothing else.
      If they are property, necessarily, it would be in violation of the 13th amendment, as it deprived from all persons all property rights over other persons.
      If the law mandates that a person must not be deprived of rights, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, are there any persons excepted from that law, and if so, why.
      Support your argument.

    • SkippingDog

      Professor Volokh is a constitutional scholar often consulted by members of our Supreme Court. He was also a law clerk for Justice O'Connor and regularly defends 2nd Amendment arguments in favor of gun rights. Here's his take on the "militia" as it is defined under the Militia Act of 1903. It appears that even your "unorganized militia" is subject to federalization and call up to enforce federal law and repress any rebellion against federal authority.

      Wouldn't that be an interesting development?

      http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/25/the-dick-act-and-gun-control/

    • Old Wolf

      It would be, were it not that the states are required by law to retain the rights for the citizens. The states may not be placed in a situation where they are mandated that such rights be revoked.
      And you're changing the subject again. Is there any living adult human being who is not a person under the law in the United States?

    • SkippingDog

      States are required only to maintain a republican form of government. They are not independent actors regarding federal laws or federal constitutional requirements. If there is a conflict between a state constitution or law and the federal constitution or federal law, the Supremacy Clause establishes that the federal authority takes precedent.

    • http://www.facebook.com/terrylee.renner TerryLee Renner

      The supremacy clause was usurped by the federal government; it was granted no such supremacy, but simply took it, by virtue of its superior firepower. The citizens did not grant it. Ruby Ridge is but one small example. That was a siege. Crimes alleged by the family involved were not of sufficient threat to justify the overwhelming show of force. How would YOU have felt, confronted by feds with murder in their demeanor? There were no court actions declaring that action legal prior to its commitment. It was decided at an executive level. Sound vaguely familiar?

    • SkippingDog

      You might want to read the Constitution again. It's in there. You might also recall that the very first person shot and killed at Ruby Ridge was a federal law enforcement officer. Everything else flowed from that event.

    • SkippingDog

      Not that I'm aware of. Even corporations are "persons" under our current reading of the constitution. Why would it matter in our discussion?

    • Old Wolf

      Because the initial point was the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity for any person under any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom was and remains a felony under the laws of the United States. This isn't the civil law, it is the criminal law. There are no exceptions, and no immunities. The felony is committed when any person willfully enforces any law which deprives a person of those rights, privileges, or immunities. It is a uniform law, and has been involved in the treaty powers.

      The states are mandated to obey this law. The federal government is likewise bound. The states are also bound not to ignore incursions upon the law, under title 18, section 3 of the US code.

      Title 28, section 1343, establishes jurisdiction for direct civil liability for those deprivations, or failing to prevent them. The states are bound by that law. Title 42, section 1983 also establishes similar penalties under the civil law, but exempts judicial officers in the direct performance of their duty, which must be within constitutional bounds.

      The constitution is the limit and the definition and the mandate upon which all federal authority is built. It goes back to that same Madison v. Monroe. The supreme court never nullifies a law, it merely recognizes that the law is outside of the powers of the general government, and declares that the law.. never was within those powers.

      " There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorise, but what they forbid." -- Federalist 78

    • SkippingDog

      Neither of the statutes you cite apply to the federal government or federal employees. The clear language of the statute says to whom and what it applies, and the federal government and its officers are mentioned nowhere within. The principles of statutory construction inform us that the application and breadth of a statute are clearly stated in its text.

      When the Supreme Court holds that a law is unconstitutional, that law may no longer be enforced. That is what nullifies a law, and it is a clear duty of the judicial branch of our government. Remember things like "separate but equal," etc.? Review Marbury v. Madison if you like reading about the law.

      As you note in your paragraph beginning with "Title 28" it is the states, not the federal government, which are bound by that law. Since only the judicial branch has the legal authority to determine the constitutionality of a particular statute, there's not other lawful course available to reach such an end. That's why we have appellate courts.

      While it is clear that no legislative act contrary to our constitution can be valid, as you quote from the FP, it remains with our courts and judicial processes to determine that constitutionality. That's what our system of "checks and balances" is all about.

    • Old Wolf

      From the FBI website regarding 242.

      This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

      This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of
      his/her color or race.

      Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

      The law itself clearly says 'any person'. It does not limit it to the operation against state operators.

      From the justice.gov site:

      For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law"
      include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials
      within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the
      bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done
      while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the
      performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under
      color of law within the meaning of this statute include police
      officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as
      well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and
      others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary
      that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color,
      religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of
      the victim.

    • SkippingDog

      That's the same argument the people who want marijuana legalized are making, but you haven't seen any federal officers or officials prosecuted under that case either.

      Here's a question for you, since I'm sure there are many people on this site who feel an affinity for both the Ruby Ridge and the Waco people who lost their lives. If your analysis of the law were correct, why weren't any of the federal officers so many of you claimed had violated the civil rights laws ever indicted by a grand jury? The local grand jury in Idaho attempted to indict some federal agents, but those charges were quickly dismissed under the Supremacy Clause you seem to disregard.

      Have any federal officials been prosecuted under the laws you cite?

    • http://www.facebook.com/terrylee.renner TerryLee Renner

      Prosecuted? By whom? Those who are in charge of the prosecution? How supremely unlikely.

    • SkippingDog

      That's my point.

    • SkippingDog

      Something more to consider:

      "In Screws v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. §242 required proof of the defendant's specific intent to deprive the victim of a constitutional right. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945). In United States v. Guest, the Supreme Court read this same requirement into §241, the conspiracy statute. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)."

    • Old Wolf

      However, at the same point, the only requirement for the intent to do so, is that there be sufficient warning. Ignorance, including willful ignorance of the law is no excuse under the law. Screws is an older case, and was overridden, and extended by Monroe v. Pape, and in a later case extended to muncipalities. It also extends to exclusively federal districts, territories, etc.
      There have been numerous federal agents cited under the statute, including several FBI officers, and border patrol agents such as Joaquin Ayala. As far as the charge of willfulness goes, willfulness is accomplished under the federal statutes by knowing, or having reason to know, that the right exists, and federal supreme court cases are sufficient for this purpose, as is the congressional record on the subject, under the uniform code for criminal evidence.
      Refusal to look, or refusal to learn is willful blindness, and is equally culpable in a 242 case. The simple language of the statute requires only a very few things to be proven.

      1: a right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed or protected under the constitution or law.

      2: A person willfully engaged in the deprivation of that right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed or protected under the constitution or law, that had reason to know, or should have known that the right was protected.

      3: That the person deprived be a citizen, or a person in a state, territory, district, or possession.

      "An act is done willfully if it is done intentionally, and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids."[United States v. Greenup, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 12027 (6th Cir. Tenn. June 7, 1999)]
      However, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Willfulness can equally be accomplished by violating the terms of a statute if a person had known, or reason to have known, that the right exists, or if the person was engaged in willful blindness as to the nature of the right. Acts of the supreme court, and acts of congress are sufficient notice as to the intent of the law.

      The specific statements involved in this case were as follows:
      "At the same time, the same Justices recognized that this constitutional difficulty does not arise when the accused is charged with violating a “right which has been made specific either by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them.
      When broad constitutional requirements have been “made specific” by the text or settled interpretations, willful violators “certainly are in no position to say that they had no adequate advance notice that they would be visited with punishment. . . . They are not punished for violating an unknowable something.” -- US v. Lanier

      The McDonald v. Chicago case makes it quite plain that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.
      "In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress
      referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong. Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
      “Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete.” Ibid."
      “The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.” Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 2d Sess., 1967.
      "In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."
      Lest you forget, the right to vote was similar in character, and ultimately reextended to felons, as a fundamental right by which all other rights were protected.
      This has not yet been challenged in light of the newer cases, but the states have no authority to establish regulatory schemes that are injurious to the right itself. That right is, again, the keeping and bearing of arms. The state power extends only to those regulations which expedite and make more convenient the operation and use of rights. (Capen v. Foster, included in Yick wo v. Hopkins)
      Nor are the privileges and immunities of citizens existent in a vacuum. They were discussed, and debated under the article 4 abridgement clause as early as the Prudence Crandall case, as well as Dred Scott, and the latter case's reasoning for why Dred Scott must remain a slave became the core of the title 18, section 242 privileges and immunities language.
      Rights are not merely held until the individual transgresses against the society. They are the essence itself of citizenship. In trop v. Dulles, the citizenship was attempted to be seized for punishment of a crime, and failed under the 8th amendment, as a cruel and unusual punishment, as the citizenship itself was the right to have rights. Without that right, and the rights commitant to the citizenship, it has no value. The only authority by which the states have the power to seize the rights permanently is the death penalty.
      What the 1866 act did was establish a clear 'right to have rights' and vested and protected those rights as a protected property interest. It was reestablished in 1871, and reorganized in 1874, and remains as faithfully the law of the land today as it was then.This includes, much as most attorneys and judges hate to admit it today, the explicit intent to protect the second amendment rights.

    • countyguard

      The word "person" has been perverted... just do a reading of some of the IRS code, and you'll see how definitions have changed for their benefit. Corporations are not defined in the "constitution" as "persons." Better read it again.

    • SkippingDog

      But corporations have been defined as "persons" under our law for nearly a century. How do you like going through life with no idea of how your government works?

    • countyguard

      Subject to federalization? You have a serious government worship problem don't you? The act of calling up the organized militia to help in lawful and constitutional issues does not "federalize" the militia, or the "unorganized militia." Please! So, this means the People are under control of the government, right, regardless of what they may think? Repress "any" rebellion against federal authority? What about the rebellion against the NDAA, or the gun restrictions, or Obamacare, or... whatever? You seriously need to study original intent, not the perversion the government has foisted on America.

    • SkippingDog

      You need to read the Militia Act of 1903, since you don't seem to have any clue otherwise.

    • SkippingDog

      Guns don't have rights and are not persons. Regulating interstate commerce has long been a recognized constitutional duty of the federal government. Guns are a product of interstate commerce and, even if they do not move from a particular state physically, affect interstate commerce through their production. Regulating the manufacture, sale, transport and use of firearms is not confiscation, and prohibiting a class or type of firearm from being legally available to civilians is clearly within the power of the federal government without violating the 2nd Amendment. See Miller for details.

      Neither our constitution or laws prohibit the deprivation of rights, so long as that deprivation is accorded due process of the law. Therefore, passing a law that would prohibit the further manufacture, sale or transfer of, say, any center fire, semiautomatic rifle with a barrel in excess of 16 inches, and requiring that all current owners of those weapons obtain owner licenses and register the weapons within a specified period of time would fully conform to due process requirements if they were uniformly applied to all persons similarly situated. Due process requirements would also be served by legally declaring all such weapons not legally registered to licensed owners contraband after some specified future date, with penal sanctions applying to their possession.

      There are many thoughtful ways to address the problem and still maintain the right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment.

    • Old Wolf

      However, due process for deprivation of rights requires the intervention of a jury. Doing so without, by mere operation of law, is the very definition of a bill of pains and penalties, or a bill of attainder, in the constitutional prohibition, under Ex parte garland, and Cummings v. Missouri. The property is owned by the individuals, and is of value to them, and being deprived without trail, or with trial so perfunctory that the only thing that must be proved is that the act was done or not done.
      Again, you get into other issues of law at that point. By your argument, we could tax menorahs, bibles, the length of church speeches, we could license each and every operation of every church rite. We could tax upon the length of speeches, and the content of the words. We could license those we wished to allow to speak, and deprive others of that privilege. We could declare that all persons who did not turn in their bible, their menorah, or their home or car or anything else was subject to punishment. That is the very essence of deprivation of the rights. It injuriously subverts or restrains the very things that are the means of exercise, and the subject of the rights themselves.
      We could just as easily declare that if we do not pay our jury license, we must take a magistrate trial.
      The prohibitions of the constitution relate to the things involved in the exercise of the right as much as the right itself. The right is the right to the means, as well as the operation thereof, not merely a right to say that you have it, but an indefeasable and vested right to those things which are your own.
      Very simply put, if the federal government or state government chooses to assert dominion and control over the right, not over the criminal acts involved in the misuse of the right, then they have stepped out of bounds.
      The law deals in acts, and in the mens rea and actus rea. The mere bearing of a weapon is not in and of itself a crime, nor indication that a crime is going to occur, nor an indication of intent.
      The problem involved with taxation of the second amendment is similar to that extended within the NFA taxes. While possession of a machine gun is not illegal with paying the taxes and licensures, there is nothing requiring them to accept the payment of the tax and licensure, hence 'machine guns' fall out of common use. It is similar to if new weapons are invented, as they are not in 'common use' they can never enter into common use.
      "It is settled by a long line of recent
      decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes
      the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees
      contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official -- as by requiring a
      permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of
      such official -- is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint
      upon the enjoyment of those freedoms." -- Shuttlesworth.
      "“The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 62–63)." McDonald v Chicago

    • countyguard

      Boy are you brainwashed. You are wrong on most everything you stated above. What you suggest is that "due process" could nullify all of our rights should the government choose to do that. Gun manufacturing within a state, and those guns not leaving the state, is NOT under the control of the federal government. THINK for a minute, will you. Your interpretation would include every aspect of commerce that exists in the entire republic, and nothing could be excluded under your delusions. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand? Everything you stated above is an "infringement" so what exactly are you spouting here?

      Dur process of law must be "within" the law and constitution, NOT simply creating a statute that makes some bogus claim. We have 60 million statutes to date, all for people like you who need to be told how to live and what to do. This is a violation of not only God's law, but of common law as well. It is a pharisaical scam to control people and milk them for every penny they can. Wow, you amaze me.

    • SkippingDog

      You are exactly the type of person who needs to have guns made more difficult to obtain. the Interstate Commerce Clause has been interpreted multiple times by our Supreme Court, and your ideas about it don't hold any water at all.

    • http://www.facebook.com/terrylee.renner TerryLee Renner

      The continuing misinformation concerning the use of the term "Militia" continues to be used by some bent on obfuscation, to advance an untenable argument. The militia and the national guard are not remotely the same. The national guard is a government entity; the very thing that the "militia" was granted power to resist. The militia can Never be a government entity.

    • SkippingDog

      Read the Milita Act of 1903. The Constitution itself describes both the power of Congress to establish the militia and its standards, and the power of the President to call it up into federal service. If you don't know that, you don't know much about either our history or the militia.

    • countyguard

      You are typically misleading in your statements. The federal government is not the key to the militia.

      Who is the militia?

      "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except
      for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia
      Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3,
      June 16, 1788.

      Colorado Constitution - SEC. 5. The Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the military forces of the State, except when they shall be called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call out the militia to execute the laws, suppress insurrection, or repel invasion.

      The GOVERNOR is in charge of the militia, not the federal government, and the federal government cannot prevent a militia, because it is constitutional.

    • SkippingDog

      Again, read the Militia Act of 1903 for details. BTW, if the Governor is the only authority the militia answers to, how come the Alabama militia was federalized to enforce civil rights, in direct opposition to George Wallace?

    • countyguard

      Skippy, ever heard of Letters of Marque and Reprisal?

      The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8 cl. 11:

      "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant
      Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"

      This was for civilians to act on behalf of the government to help in dealing with war or other threats. It also meant that civilians had the SAME quality and type of weapons the government had... ships, cannons, muskets, etc. They weren't limited. Of course, a typical argument is, "so that means we should have nuclear weapons?" LOL... no, the risk and benefit ratio is way off in that argument, but to claim that the servant can have automatic weapons and silencers, and the master can only have semi-automatic weapons, (and that is being challenged) is ridiculous.

      Anyone who understand what the 2nd Amendment is actually for, knows that it is directly and specifically to protect the People from their own government, so when the government maintains better weapons than the People, and tries to remove these guns... well... you should research this in history because in EVERY case this was allowed, there were millions of dead citizens by their own government.

      WAKE UP!

    • SkippingDog

      Except your claim is about two-hundred years out of date. If you'd ever served in the military, you'd know the difference.

    • SkippingDog

      Title 18, section 242 USC and 42 USC, section 1983, et seq. apply to "State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District..." not to federal law or the Federal Government itself. If there is a federal law passed that restricts firearms in some way, your challenge would be as to its constitutionality by way of the federal appellate courts. Presuming that enforcement of such a law would not be stayed during the appeal, it would be enforceable throughout the jurisdiction of the United States and its territories, possessions, etc.

    • Old Wolf

      And in my zeal for the court cases, I neglected the simplest explanation of all.
      Who enforces the laws in territories, districts, or possessions of the United States? It is not the states, but the federal jurisdiction in those locations, and therefore, it cannot be, by the standard nature of statutes, that it applies only to the states, but to federal officers, and judges of all sorts.

    • SkippingDog

      Enforcing a federal law wouldn't come under any definition of denying civil rights. Your idea would only have legs if some federal officers decided to enforce a provision of the law after the court had actually ruled it unconstitutional AND a protected civil right. Neither of those things have happened with the 2nd Amendment, other than the court's recent application of the Incorporation Doctrine to it and the holding that there is a basic right to bear arms. There's plenty of room under that legal ruling to establish many more meaningful restrictions that are consistent with the ruling.

    • Frank

      @skippingDog - You really should read the Constitution more closely along with the founding fathers, especially the Federalist Papers and the principles of federalism and republicanism. I teach Constitution courses.

      The Supremacy Clause contained in Article VI of the Constitution does not mean anything and everything the general government does trumps the states. It says that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF;..." This means that any laws passed by the Congress that are not "in pursuance of" the Constitution are not supreme, and are as a matter of fact, null and void.

      The question is, who is to make this determination? SCOTUS?? Absolutely not. That is a misunderstanding of the role and authority of the court as prescribed by Article III. If you doubt this, then I'd again suggest you read both Madison's and Hamilton's explanation of the role of the court in this regard in the Federalist Papers.

      You might be interested in knowing, but then again maybe not, that there have been several instances of states nullifying federal actions during the early days of our Republic - google them. I'd also recommend that you read The Kentucky Resolutions (written by Jefferson) and The Virginia Resolutions (written by Madison) of 1798 to further enlighten you on this matter.

      As for this "nonsense" being put forth by these "rebels", I would suggest that it is you putting forth nonsense, emanating from a gross ignorance of the Constitution, our founding, our founders' writings on these topics and the principles of federalism as I mentioned before.

    • SkippingDog

      Say it all you want, but Marbury v. Madison remains the controlling authority in all courts of our land. The concept of nullification was attempted and forcibly rejected beginning with President Jackson, and decisively with the outcome of the Civil War.

      If you're trying to stir up the Neo-Confederates, by all means have a good time. Just don't whine when you become the target of both federal and state criminal charges for weapons violations, terrorist acts, and anything else that may be an appropriate response to your sedition.

    • countyguard

      Why do you persist in your lies, skippy? You have several people providing you with actual law, and you deny it. Nullification has surely been used before. Question? Is the federal government above the People, or do the People rule? Question? Are you a Federal 14th Amendment citizen, or a State citizen, or both? If you say both, then that is your problem, because you are a federal Government citizen and you accept the chains that brings with it..."A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government
      ..." Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383.

      You really should do some research into the difference between the corporate "United States" and the united several states of America. Your federal government masters have deceived you and the rest of us into accepting this federal jurisdiction over us. We can quit being this citizen, and we, the creators of the federal government, can simply nullify any unconstitutional laws AND stop the federal government from acting outside their jurisdiction... that of D.C., and the other territories...Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution,

      "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

      They are way outside that today, and are far exceeding their 18 enumerated powers we give to them.

      “We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it’s own...” United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

      Start here... http://www.state-citizen.org/ and http://www.constitution.org/juris/fedjur1.htm and libertyzone.org

    • SkippingDog

      There is no post-Civil War legal support for your claim of nullification. Get over it and get a clue.

    • Sunshine Kid

      Thank you for expressing more clearly than I am able.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000190583881 John OMalia

      Federalization of a State's National Guard also depends upon voluntary compliance, without it the feds can do nothing.

    • SkippingDog

      The moment the President signs an order federalizing a National Guard unit, that unit becomes a member of the U.S. Army (Air Force in the case of the Air Guard) and all of the duties and obligations of such status apply. That means they take their orders from the Commander in Chief at that point, not the Governor or state military department, and are fully subject to the UCMJ for failure to comply with their lawful orders.

      BTW, all orders are presumed lawful under the UCMJ, and it becomes the individual service member's burden to prove they were unlawful at his or her courts martial.

    • http://www.facebook.com/leprecaun14456 Robert Myles

      All member's of the Military also have a duty to not comply with an unconstitutional order. Do you really want to try that Federalization of the state national guard unit? I believe you will find they will not Comply with such an order

    • SkippingDog

      That's the same argument George Wallace tried to make when the NG was federalized to get you people to comply with our civil rights laws.

      Under the UCMJ, all orders are presumed to be lawful. Claiming an order was unlawful is an admissible defense during a courts martial, but the burden of proof in showing the unlawfulness of the order rests with the accused.

      If push comes to shove, the NG will do their duty and take it from you. If you resist or attempt to use force against them or other law enforcement authorities, it will merely prove that you are an outlaw and terrorist who is a danger to the community and must be either apprehended or neutralized.

      It all plays out very predictably.

    • Sunshine Kid

      Under the UCMJ, all orders are NOT presumed to be lawful, dog. Try again. You are right that the person accused of disobeying an order must prove his reasoning why it was not obeyed, but that is a right given under the UCMJ, not an obligation. Otherwise, they'd just do like the Germans and Russians did in WWII to obstinate generals and field marshals.

    • SkippingDog

      You need to have a talk with your local Judge Advocate about Articles 90-92 of the UCMJ.

      Here's the pertinent section:

      "(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

      Directing a military member to assist in the enforcement of a federal law is clearly not a crime, so your failure to comply with such an order would be unlawful under the UCMJ and you would be punished.

    • Sunshine Kid

      Federal laws that violate Federal laws are unenforceable due to the simple fact that one law does not repeal the other.

    • SkippingDog

      Perhaps you can rethink this and try for some clarity in your argument.

    • Sunshine Kid

      In other words, you cannot understand simple truths, can you, dog?

    • SkippingDog

      Your claim was that "federal laws that violate federal laws are unenforceable" and that doesn't make any sense. We're talking about a state law that presumes to take precedence over controlling federal law.

    • Sunshine Kid

      I didn't stutter. I said "Federal laws violate federal laws are unenforceable." I did NOT mention state laws, did I? Even if I had mentioned state laws, the same principle applies. In this case, the state law that ignores federal law is quite correct in that the federal law is unenforceable due to its violation of federal law.
      You are one dumb dog.

    • SkippingDog

      Perhaps you can give us an example of a federal law that violates a federal law. There doesn't seem to be one in this case.

    • Sunshine Kid

      What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is it that you do not understand, dog? Federal gun laws violate federal law (the Constitution of the United States, to be exact, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.
      You are dumb getting dumber by the minute.

    • SkippingDog

      The U.S. Constitution provides the framework for our system of law, but it is not a body of law itself. If you believe a law violates the constitution, the proper course it to challenge that law in the federal courts and litigate the matter until a final decision is reached - usually by a Circuit Court of Appeals, but sometimes by the U.S. Supreme Court.

      Your claim that a federal law violates the constitution is only that until it is subject to legal scrutiny. Thus far, nearly every federal law restricting firearms has been found to be constitutional and permissible under the 2nd Amendment. There's no reason to believe a federal law requiring background checks for private firearms purchases, or even the complete prohibition on the private sale, transfer or possession of an assault weapon would not pass the same constitutional tests.

      Cheer up, Sunshine. The law and the world are more complex than you realize. Perhaps you'll learn some day.

    • countyguard

      Wow, wrong again. You have such a great record in wrong. The right to decide whether something is constitutional lies with the People. The courts have already proven their perversion of law, and their willingness to ignore it completely because they are a creation of the federal government... their master. (Have lots of cases to prove that). "Nearly every federal law restricting firearms has been found to be constitutional?" LOL. Stop drinking the kool aid, please. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/05/obama-serves-14-state-governors-with-warnings-of-arrest-and-why-is-this-not-front-page-news-2636456.html?utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2Fg3rB Learn a bit more about militias here... if truth is what you really want.

    • SkippingDog

      Too bad you don't seem to understand either law or history. It's always amusing to see how riled up you teanuts get over things you know nothing about.

    • livefree1200cc

      The Constitution was not written to tell we the people what we can and can't do. The Constitution was written with one and only one purpose - to limit the power of the Federal Government

    • SkippingDog

      By the way, Sunshine. You seemed to be very defensive about the gun nuts who bought their 5 year old a rifle with which he killed his little sister. That wouldn't have been your house in the picture, would it?

    • Sunshine Kid

      Where did I defend them? I suggested that your claim that the house belonged to Rachel Guess puts you in a very low life category, which I still believe you to be by your now suggesting that the house might be mine, as you cannot discourse socially without being insulting (one reason that I enjoy baiting you by using your own tactics against you). I believe you to be a socialist nut case, and that is my opinion, because obviously, you have some brains, but refuse to use them.

    • SkippingDog

      You're the one getting all petulant and peevish, Sunshine. I only responded in kind.

    • livefree1200cc

      Skipping dog is a queer socialist nutcase

    • Sunshine Kid

      Well known. It is why I enjoy baiting the idiot.

    • SkippingDog

      What is the purpose of the bill, fliteking?

    • donthaveagun

      GREAT POST!

    • fliteking

      Thanks.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jimmy-Cosby/100000723561549 Jimmy Cosby

      We the People rule. Federal law that violates the Constitution is illegal and will be opposed to the death. The reason that statutes banning machineguns and other devices are still standing is that not many people want them. They are an overeach of federal power, however, and if attempts are made to disarm the citizenary they will be met with force!!

    • SkippingDog

      There may be some nuts who attempt to use force to keep their gun fetish going, but they (you?) will be isolated and either arrested or killed in fairly short order. You may manage to harm a state or federal law enforcement officer on your way out, but that will only make your acts that much more heinous and unacceptable by the vast majority of law abiding citizens.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rachel-Guess/100001271026565 Rachel Guess

      Wow, did you just refer to the RIGHTS provided to citizens in the 2nd Amendment as a 'fetish'?...LOL

      I live in the south, and we pride ourselves on our hospitality. So why don't you come on down and talk about your stand on this issue loud and proud. We teach our children about the US Constitution and how to shoot at an early age. I am sure they would appreciate the extra target practice...:)

    • SkippingDog

      No, I referred to many of those who exercise those rights as using guns as a fetish. If you'd teach your children about the use of English words, they'd understand what a fetish is and how it applies to guns for many of you.

    • SkippingDog

      Yes, I know you love to give your kids guns down there. The whole world knows about your kids and their guns now.

      BTW, it that a picture of your home?

      http://news.yahoo.com/5-old-shoots-2-old-sister-kentucky-224824744.html

    • Sunshine Kid

      You really are a low life, aren't you, dog? Does your house look any better, or is it a single room with two seats side by side with holes cut in the bottom?

    • SkippingDog

      Not at all, kid. I have a nice house in a nice suburb. My wife and kids are happy, my pets like me, and I have five or six close personal friends.

      How's that compare with your squalor?

    • Sunshine Kid

      Lovely, Rachel! Skipper the dog has his own fetish: Power.

    • http://www.facebook.com/leprecaun14456 Robert Myles

      The US constitution is only Supreme in that the laws must be acceptable u der the Constitution. Since the Second amendment states "The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms shall Not be Infringed" this is certainly a Constitutionally acceptable law

    • SkippingDog

      It certainly is, Robert, but it doesn't have any impact or authority on federal law at all. Each and every federal law pertaining to firearms is still enforceable by the federal government, no matter how many laws you pass at the state level.

    • livefree1200cc

      The Feds don't have any jurisdiction in the states. The Federal government has usurped way more power than it was ever granted

  • Bozo

    Yeah Montana had a bill like that too ! Our liberal governor Steve Bullock decided to veto it !! Just another liberal Obama lap dog !! This leaves our citizens vulnerable !!! Thanks Bullock !!!

    • http://www.facebook.com/fred.ashplant1 Fred Ashplant

      The citizens of Montana need to get rid of Bullock. Problem solved.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000190583881 John OMalia

      Impeach him!

    • BillinDetroit

      You guys don't have a recall mechanism?