NC Bill Declares Federal Gun Control Invalid and not Enforceable.

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thoughts? Does this effectively, state-wise, thumb its nose at laws like NFA and all its progenies?

North Carolina Bill Declares Federal Gun Control Invalid and not Enforceable - ShallNot.org

 

[mrjarrell]

Doesn't seem like it is meant to affect current law, just some potentially onerous future laws. It's just poking at the bear and likely won't last longer than it take the fedgov to say "Highway Funds Withheld". They've got some pretty big incentives to hit the states with in the form of monies to withhold. These nullification bills are mostly just feel good legislation. When push comes to shove the feds are going to get their way.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well crap. Not the poke-the-eye I would have dreamed of:

SECTION 4. This act applies only to an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms that occurs on or after the effective date of this act.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yet another feckless Kentucky Resolution.

If the California of the South wants to "make a statement", which seems to the craze among you kids these days, it could . . . oh, I don't know, repeal a bunch of Norf Cackalacky statutes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yet another feckless Kentucky Resolution.

If the California of the South wants to "make a statement", which seems to the craze among you kids these days, it could . . . oh, I don't know, repeal a bunch of Norf Cackalacky statutes.

Too bad the politics surrounding gun ownership isn't equivalent to pot. For if states can legalize pot, they could certainly legalize restricted, taxed, and stamped firearms...in that state, anyway.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Maybe North Carolina could adopt the Freeman Gun Safety Tax Credit Plan (FGSTCP)--above the line tax deductions for gun training classes and expenses--if it wants to "make a statement" and actually do something productive?

 

[GIJEW]

This seems like a double edged sword. If NC MT etc can nullify federal laws by simply refusing to comply/abide by them, next thing IL etc will refuse to recognize the heller' and 'mcdonald' decisions...of course, DOJ under holder has more than anybody to politicize law enforcement this way.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This seems like a double edged sword. If NC MT etc can nullify federal laws by simply refusing to comply/abide by them, next thing IL etc will refuse to recognize the heller' and 'mcdonald' decisions...of course, DOJ under holder has more than anybody to politicize law enforcement this way.

Pffft, we don't need no rule of law.

 

[Mark 1911]

Too bad the politics surrounding gun ownership isn't equivalent to pot. For if states can legalize pot, they could certainly legalize restricted, taxed, and stamped firearms...in that state, anyway.

I find it very telling in a strange and twisted sort of way that any government would be more comfortable with everyone walking around high on pot than with everyone owning a 30 round magazine for an AR. Perhaps they think it is much easier to control the latter scenario.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I find it very telling in a strange and twisted sort of way that any government would be more comfortable with everyone walking around high on pot than with everyone owning a 30 round magazine for an AR. Perhaps they think it is much easier to control the latter scenario.

I would like somebody to explain to me the difference. Under federal law, isn't it illegal to own, manufacture, sell, and transport marajuana? If the states can disregard federal law and allow its citizens to use (bear) and keep marajuana, why can a state so inclined make the same sort of provisions for silencers, SBSs, fully automatic weapons, etc?

 

[Mark 1911]

I would like somebody to explain to me the difference. Under federal law, isn't it illegal to own, manufacture, sell, and transport marajuana? If the states can disregard federal law and allow its citizens to use (bear) and keep marajuana, why can a state so inclined make the same sort of provisions for silencers, SBSs, fully automatic weapons, etc?

I sure don't know the answer, but to me it begs the question of exactly what the role of the Federal Government really is and just where is the line between Federal Government intrusion and State autonomy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I would like somebody to explain to me the difference. Under federal law, isn't it illegal to own, manufacture, sell, and transport marajuana? If the states can disregard federal law and allow its citizens to use (bear) and keep marajuana, why can a state so inclined make the same sort of provisions for silencers, SBSs, fully automatic weapons, etc?

The state isn't disregarding federal law. The feds still enforce those laws in the state. There just is no overlapping state law.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The state isn't disregarding federal law. The feds still enforce those laws in the state. There just is no overlapping state law.

While I know they maintain that they have jurisdiction, they're really not enforcing their laws, are they? (regarding mj).

 

[cobber]

I find it very telling in a strange and twisted sort of way that any government would be more comfortable with everyone walking around high on pot than with everyone owning a 30 round magazine for an AR. Perhaps they think it is much easier to control the latter scenario.

Perhaps you're being ironic, but that's exactly so. Classify everyone as mentally ill, medicate everyone, and disarm them to boot. In three generations no one will remember what it was like when folks weren't always 'mellow'.

 

[45fan]

I would like somebody to explain to me the difference. Under federal law, isn't it illegal to own, manufacture, sell, and transport marajuana? If the states can disregard federal law and allow its citizens to use (bear) and keep marajuana, why can a state so inclined make the same sort of provisions for silencers, SBSs, fully automatic weapons, etc?

I fail to see any difference in the two scenarios. Honestly, with that thought process in mind, why would there be any need for the Fed to have any laws claiming authority over a citizen? Shouldnt it leaving the citizen to the state, and the Fed to govern the states..

 

[BehindBlueI's]

While I know they maintain that they have jurisdiction, they're really not enforcing their laws, are they? (regarding mj).

Do you want more marijuana enforcement?

 

[OutdoorDad]

The last time North Carolina decided to "go their own way", it didn't work out all that well.

My great grandfather had to walk back from Mananas missing his right arm from the elbow down.

And my grandmother held a lifelong grudge against the Republicans. They were the ones who shot her Daddy. Who could blame her???

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you want more marijuana enforcement?

You missed my point. If the feds have jurisdiction and don't exercise authority of marajuana, what is different that, should a state decide to not participate in assisting the federal enforcement of NFA/GCA/etc, repeal any/all state level laws restricting/prohibiting/regulating such arms---just like Colorado did with mj? If Indiana were to say, we're not going to sign any forms, we're not going to assist the feds in enforcing their laws, and we're going to remove any remaining infringements, wouldn't that be analogous to mj? I realize the politics is different and acknowledged such in an earlier post--I'm just talking about the logic of it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You missed my point. If the feds have jurisdiction and don't exercise authority of marajuana, what is different that, should a state decide to not participate in assisting the federal enforcement of NFA/GCA/etc, repeal any/all state level laws restricting/prohibiting/regulating such arms---just like Colorado did with mj? If Indiana were to say, we're not going to sign any forms, we're not going to assist the feds in enforcing their laws, and we're going to remove any remaining infringements, wouldn't that be analogous to mj? I realize the politics is different and acknowledged such in an earlier post--I'm just talking about the logic of it.

Do you think that's what this law does?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you think that's what this law does?

No. Still missing the point, it seems.