If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
One of my top favorite bands from the 70s
It's all what the Supreme Court decides and lately, their decisions amount to horse shit.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.
So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.
isn't that what the Negotiating Rights Away is for ?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 ?
So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.
2A rights. In my state, I am treated as a felon in obtaining a CCW, but my next door state can carry unrestrictedWhich 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.
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.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.
You said it better than I could...your thoughts are exactly what I was thinking.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.
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.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.
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.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.
In what way does this case relate to the sovereign citizen movement?
In what way does this case relate to the sovereign citizen movement?
Let me further frame the discussion:So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.
Are you confusing sovereign and/or qualified immunity with sovereign citizens?Here’s another example. In this one the Ohio Supreme Court said that the law does not apply to sovereign citizens.
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."
And arguably the Civil War started because of questions of state sovereignty between Missouri and Kansas vs. DC.Note we fought a civil war over such issues.
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.
So, No they can't have it both ways.
NH only makes someone prohibited if the offense was a felony in NH at the time.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".
The difference is that some people's principles change based on the issue in question.So the difference between state and local nullification of gun control laws, and of immigration laws is what?
Discuss.
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?