Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
With GOP owning both halves of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch, can they force SAFE Act to be reversed; or does the State trump the Fed on all gun laws?
Yes all the lawsuits stopped when scalia passed , they wouldn't win without him. Now if we get some constitutional judges in there . The lawsuits will commence and the safe act be no more. It is illegal and unconstitutional.Well, if we get a pro-2A SCOTUS judge (and I think we will) then I say let the lawsuits fly.
But the 2a is a federally protected right that applies to the states. I support states rights, but when the state i violating its citizens rights wouldnt we want the fed to step in?As much as i hate to say this, even if it hurts my interests, the fed should stay out of state issues. If by some means the supreme court makes a decision, swell, otherwise, no.
It should be nasty woman.
ClyntonmidiaIt should be nasty woman.
Saw a chick on election day wearing a shirt that said that right across her bossom. Was tempted to ask what STD she had.
LiberalismIt should be nasty woman.
Saw a chick on election day wearing a shirt that said that right across her bossom. Was tempted to ask what STD she had.
I can't see how that civil war would go. Who are the states going to get to fight ? "we want to deny you the right to own guns, so take these guns and go fight the people who are trying to stop us....."As others have said, the Feds poking their noses into State's Rights issues is what led to the Civil War.. however since we're talking about a constitutionally-protected right, then they should absolutely get involved. It would have to be delicately handled though, and it sounds like California could use the help also.
The 2A supersedes them all, all Trump needs to do is fix SCOTUS and then sue the states for violating people's civil rights.Could they actually enact a Federal Law that would supersede the SAFE Act?
I thought the way it worked was that States were permitted to make Laws that were MORE strict than the Federal... Just not less strict. (surprisingly, marijuana Laws are less strict at the State level).
I think it would require withholding State funds, or suing the State in Federal court.
*I'm still not holding my breath
That clause would support the Feds providing arms, and would keep the states from preventing them from doing so .As I posted earlier, the federal government has an ENUMERATED power (section 1, Article 8) which allows them to: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Note that it specifically allows them to arm the Militia and specify the rules (discipline) associated with the Militia. I see no reason why this clause can't be used to allow citizens to have modern sporting rifles that can be used in the defense of the nation.
As much as i hate to say this, even if it hurts my interests, the fed should stay out of state issues. If by some means the supreme court makes a decision, swell, otherwise, no.