Missouri Governor Will Sign Bill Nullifying Federal Gun Laws...My soon to be home state.

[kevin9]

So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.

 

[timbo]

I see Kansas!

View attachment 493208

One of my top favorite bands from the 70s

 

[timbo]

So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.

It's all what the Supreme Court decides and lately, their decisions amount to horse shit.

 

[Picton]

It's all what the Supreme Court decides and lately, their decisions amount to horse shit.

Sure, but be fair. They've been deciding nullification cases since 1789, and EVERY one of them has gone identically.

That's a lot of cases. Feds gonna fed.

 

[Picton]

So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.

The difference is whether it's worth going to SCOTUS. And whether anyone can afford the time and money to take it there.

 

[bigbravehog]

sad-we have to run form state to state for constitutional rights.

 

[bigbravehog]

The difference is whether it's worth going to SCOTUS. And whether anyone can afford the time and money to take it there.

isn't that what the Negotiating Rights Away is for ?

 

[Picton]

isn't that what the Negotiating Rights Away is for ?

Which right? The right of a state to nullify? Because that's what this case is about, and that's never been upheld.

This isn't a gun case. It's a nullification case. That's the issue.

 

[Bonesinium]

So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.

Agendas.

 

[bigbravehog]

Which right? The right of a state to nullify? Because that's what this case is about, and that's never been upheld.

This isn't a gun case. It's a nullification case. That's the issue.

2A rights. In my state, I am treated as a felon in obtaining a CCW, but my next door state can carry unrestricted

besides, this nullification issue was specific to "a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules"

 

[timbo]

So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.

I honestly see no difference between nullification of repressive illegal gun laws, nullification of immigration laws and laws pertaining to drugs. How many states allow recreational marijuana usage which is federally illegal, but no one is (ie., the Fed) screaming about that. States are protecting illegal aliens illegally with impunity and no one in the Fed seems to care.

 

[Bonesinium]

I honestly see no difference between nullification of repressive illegal gun laws, nullification of immigration laws and laws pertaining to drugs.

If the law, and the constitution mattered at all, which it doesn’t, there would be a difference. The federal government has Constitutional authority with regards to immigration. It has none whatsoever to regulate drugs and guns. So state laws nullifying federal gun and drug laws should be legal while state laws nullifying federal immigration laws would be far more questionable.

But again, all that is moot because neither the federal government nor the states give a damn about being lawful. They only care about agendas; laws and constitutions be damned.

 

[timbo]

If the law, and the constitution mattered at all, which it doesn’t, there would be a difference. The federal government has Constitutional authority with regards to immigration. It has none whatsoever to regulate drugs and guns. So state laws nullifying federal gun and drug laws should be legal while state laws nullifying federal immigration laws would be far more questionable.

But again, all that is moot because neither the federal government nor the states give a damn about being lawful. They only care about agendas; laws and constitutions be damned.

You said it better than I could...your thoughts are exactly what I was thinking.

 

[AHM]

A lot of NESers throwing the word "nullifying" around
like they'd defined it or something.

 

[Mountain]

The difference is whether it's worth going to SCOTUS. And whether anyone can afford the time and money to take it there.

Actually, I think the important difference will be whether or not Missouri has any balls. This could either get interesting or disappointing. I do like that Missouri is pushing the issue.

 

[Picton]

Actually, I think the important difference will be whether or not Missouri has any balls. This could either get interesting or disappointing. I do like that Missouri is pushing the issue.

I do too, personally, though I might feel differently if I was a MO taxpayer. This effort is doomed by over 200 years worth of precedent, unfortunately.

 

[daekken]

This effort is doomed by over 200 years worth of precedent, unfortunately.

This doesn't stop "sovereign citizens" from attempting those types of defenses over and over again, despite never having won a single case employing such a method. At least in those cases they're burning their own funds, though.

 

[Bonesinium]

This doesn't stop "sovereign citizens" from attempting those types of defenses over and over again, despite never having won a single case employing such a method. At least in those cases they're burning their own funds, though.

What do you mean? That commonly works.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

 

[daekken]

What do you mean? That commonly works.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-604_ec8f.pdf

In what way does this case relate to the sovereign citizen movement?

 

[Bonesinium]

In what way does this case relate to the sovereign citizen movement?

Here’s another example. In this one the Ohio Supreme Court said that the law does not apply to sovereign citizens.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=723000.pdf

 

[kevin9]

So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.

Let me further frame the discussion:

1. Can states and cities nullify, refuse to comply, cooperate or enforce, or directly contradict federal laws regardless the validity of said laws, particularly without going through the judicial process of challenging said laws, or of they lose in court?
2. Does the validity and Constitutional basis of said laws (or lack thereof) change the answer to question 1?

Note we fought a civil war over such issues.

 

[daekken]

Here’s another example. In this one the Ohio Supreme Court said that the law does not apply to sovereign citizens.

https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/pdf_viewer/pdf_viewer.aspx?pdf=723000.pdf

Are you confusing sovereign and/or qualified immunity with sovereign citizens?

"Self-described 'sovereign citizens' see themselves as answerable only to their particular interpretations of the common law and as not subject to any government statutes or proceedings."

I don't see any connection in the cases you posted that are relevant to someone claiming things like "you cannot tax me because I am a freeman on the land and did not consent to a contract with you."

 

[Bonesinium]

Are you confusing sovereign and/or qualified immunity with sovereign citizens?

"Self-described 'sovereign citizens' see themselves as answerable only to their particular interpretations of the common law and as not subject to any government statutes or proceedings."

I don't see any connection in the cases you posted that are relevant to someone claiming things like "you cannot tax me because I am a freeman on the land and did not consent to a contract with you."

Sovereign citizens are people who think the law doesn’t apply to them. Right? You know, like the police.

 

[timbo]

Note we fought a civil war over such issues.

And arguably the Civil War started because of questions of state sovereignty between Missouri and Kansas vs. DC.

 

[FisherTech]

From What I have read of this law, The Fed's are on their own to enforce the federal laws. There is to be no assistance to them in enforcing those laws. I don't see where that nullifies federal law. Think about this, the feds came down hard on the states enforcing the border, claiming that it was the sole duty of the federal government. So, No they can't have it both ways.

 

[Picton]

From What I have read of this law, The Fed's are on their own to enforce the federal laws. There is to be no assistance to them in enforcing those laws. I don't see where that nullifies federal law. Think about this, the feds came down hard on the states enforcing the border, claiming that it was the sole duty of the federal government. So, No they can't have it both ways.

I believe (though I don't know) that there's a difference between states (and their lower-level governments) simply announcing they won't enforce federal law, and those same states actually passing a law saying they cannot or should not. That law, unlike a simple announcement, policy change, or, let's say, something like an "enforcement notice" published as an Op-Ed, is a statute that can be directly challenged for its constitutionality. There's already a well-established procedure for doing that, which we've been doing as long as we've been a country.

Not sure that matters, but I'd imagine it does. A duly passed law is fundamentally different from a mere policy announcement.

 

[Bonesinium]

So, No they can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately this is the government we are talking about. And sadly, they get to eat their cake and have it too.

 

[KBCraig]

Texas allows a convicted felon to possess a firearm in their home after a certain number of years, which is a huge violation of federal law. How many Texas felons got arrested by BATFE and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office? Not sure what the statistics are, but the penalty is 10 years in federal prison if convicted of "felon in possession of a firearm".

NH only makes someone prohibited if the offense was a felony in NH at the time.

DUI in MA? Federally prohibited, but not NH prohibited.

 

[KBCraig]

So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.

The difference is that some people's principles change based on the issue in question.

I support federalism. Let the feds do fed stuff. If it's not illegal on the state level, it's not our concern.

Drugs, guns, immigration... just let everyone stick to their lanes.

State and local police are not subdivisions of the U.S Department of Justice.

 

[Picton]

Where would an executive branch of a state derive the power/authority to NOT enforce/ignore a fed statute without the legislature providing for that via legislation?

Through executive orders.

In other words, "extraconstitutionally." Executives take action without legislative approval all the time, and it's always shameful. But remember the chorus of praise here for Trump when he funded the wall that way?

Executives gonna executive.