DOJ files brief to end state-level gun bans
- Thread starter Muley Gil
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Being in a state that is pushing the boundaries with their legislation and continue to push more, this would be a huge thing for me and my neighbors. Fingers crossed, rabbits foot, four leaf clover and light a candle for the Virgin.
I have everything crossed for this.
Agreed! I think Salem and Olympia are in competition to out-do each other with draconian gun laws. It would be a distinct pleasure to see the feds put the clamps on these yahoos.
I believe Jr has a big influence in some of these moves.
This thread started 13 1/2 hrs ago. And nobody has said how it’s a pipe dream and states will ignore it and do what they want. Where did chicken little go ?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2024
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 18
I support this, as the Second Amendment is a constitutional (not god given) right.
My fear is that states like mine will just ratchet up the carry restrictions.
My fear is that states like mine will just ratchet up the carry restrictions.
Let's hope this doesn't. This isn't how the US was built. We aren't made for a strong, over-arching federal government, we're made for a unified group of states with their own laws, guided by the constitution. And, with the 2nd being an individual right with the aim of ensuring states have well-armed militias in times of need, it only makes sense that under that framework, states can put certain requirements in place regarding arms where that aligns with the constitution and the state's inherent rights as to its militia, which is very limited in scope.
Personally, I think that states should be required to maintain state firing ranges and provide for training for its militia, including rifle marksmanship and pistol skills. That would fit the mandate for the states to maintain a well regulated militia alongside personal choice and ownership of firearms for all purposes, not just that narrow approach.
The right solution, conservatively, is never "larger federal government" or "more federal laws," it's "state's rights."
Personally, I think that states should be required to maintain state firing ranges and provide for training for its militia, including rifle marksmanship and pistol skills. That would fit the mandate for the states to maintain a well regulated militia alongside personal choice and ownership of firearms for all purposes, not just that narrow approach.
The right solution, conservatively, is never "larger federal government" or "more federal laws," it's "state's rights."
Venom6
Member
Agree in concept but the reality is that many of us now suffer under the "tyranny of the majority."
Nothing showing in the link
Rodan
Member
I am very much a 10th Amendment advocate, but one of the few legitimate purposes of the Federal Government is to ensure the Rights of the People as recognized (not granted!) in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's about time they start doing it.
Many of the states have been trampling the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens for decades, while the Federal Government has done little or nothing to stop them. Citizens have to spend their own money to bring lawsuits to recover their rights while taxpayer funds are used to fund the States' battle to continue to violate our rights. And then when the Citizen wins, the legislatures and judges just ignore the rulings and pass more draconian laws.
It's high time the DOJ gets into this fight on the side of the Citizen. USC 1983 suits should be brought against all of these legislators, politicians, judges and prosecutors that are violating the citizens' 2nd Amendment rights. Maybe if there are finally some consequences it will get their attention.
Model19man
Member
Link works great here.
Yes, it works now. When I tried this morning there was a different lead story and this story was nowhere to be found. Thanks
I think both mreed911 and Rodan have excellent points.
States are empowered to define their laws and regulations, within the boundaries of their Constitution and the federal Constitution; insofar as those don’t contradict federal law. Likewise, the supremacy clause asserts that federal law overrides state law; this is why places like NY or NJ need to get wrecked over FOPA violations.
Mreed911 is entirely correct in that this will establish precedent for states to be overridden if the federal government doesn’t “like” their stances. Taxes, guns, abortion…it’s all on the table, in both directions. Victory for the 2A would need to be very narrowly defined as a 2A-only victory to be anything other than Phyrric.
I think this is overall a good thing for the 2A community in that its enforcement and empowerment should be universal, but the unwritten side is that we do not want our rights supported by executive orders or judicial opinions; we need them secured by an overarching federal law that cannot be creatively reinterpreted or executively mis-exercised. That’s the great weakness of the Trump era…practically all of his “wins” are tissue-thin executive orders that do nothing to persist beyond his administration and open plenty of doors to swing both ways in terms of what an executive is allowed to do.
States are empowered to define their laws and regulations, within the boundaries of their Constitution and the federal Constitution; insofar as those don’t contradict federal law. Likewise, the supremacy clause asserts that federal law overrides state law; this is why places like NY or NJ need to get wrecked over FOPA violations.
Mreed911 is entirely correct in that this will establish precedent for states to be overridden if the federal government doesn’t “like” their stances. Taxes, guns, abortion…it’s all on the table, in both directions. Victory for the 2A would need to be very narrowly defined as a 2A-only victory to be anything other than Phyrric.
I think this is overall a good thing for the 2A community in that its enforcement and empowerment should be universal, but the unwritten side is that we do not want our rights supported by executive orders or judicial opinions; we need them secured by an overarching federal law that cannot be creatively reinterpreted or executively mis-exercised. That’s the great weakness of the Trump era…practically all of his “wins” are tissue-thin executive orders that do nothing to persist beyond his administration and open plenty of doors to swing both ways in terms of what an executive is allowed to do.
You’re kidding right ?
Sometimes a “dislike” option for a post is a good thing.
About time!!!
What part of the 2A don't people understand?
What part of the 2A don't people understand?
