N.H. legislators want to take Firearms Freedom a step further

[shortround]

This is really a 10th ammendment issue, but since it relates to the Firearms Freedom Act movement, I am posting it here. Mods, please relocate if this is not appropriate.

Some New Hampshire legislators want to go a step further with the whole 10th ammendment/nullification/Firearms Freedom concept. They want to make it a felony for federal agents to enforce federal firearms laws in violation of this state law. I've no idea how much support this bill has, but let's face it - if states are serious about nullification under the 10th ammendment, this is the only way to do it.

Resist DC: NH Legislators Look to Nullify Federal Gun Laws|Tenth Amendment Center

[DaveTN]

This is not much different than what Tennessee, Montana, and some other states have done. The problem is that it has not been tested. The ATF and the Justice Department has stated what they are going to do.

I would guess that the threat of a felony charge is just fluff. The Justice Department can dismiss the charges for Agents acting within their guidelines.

I would hate to see these laws initially tested on the arrest of a Federal Agent; I predict we will lose.

These laws need to be tested without someone being arrested. But so far I don’t see anything happening.

[shortround]

The U.S. Justice Department can dismiss N.H. State felony charges? Hmmmm....

It is likely just fluff. But it doesn't have to be. You are falling for the federal government's line that the states are subject to whatever they (the fed's) say. If the states choose not to allow the federal government to enforce unconstitutional law, there is nothing the federal courts can do about it. All the states have to do is ignore them.

As long as we insist on fighting the federal government in federal court, we are going to lose. If we are stupid enough to continue that strategy, we don't even deserve to win.

[Krull]

Don't worry Obama will throw a few hundred million at the state and they will be his puppet. It's called the stimulus bill.

[shortround]

Don't worry Obama will throw a few hundred million at the state and they will be his puppet. It's called the stimulus bill.

Yup, that's how it works. Maybe one day someone will refuse to sell their rights.

[DaveTN]

The U.S. Justice Department can dismiss N.H. State felony charges? Hmmmm....

The states can do whatever they like (until he is out on bond) and the Feds can pardon him when they have him. It’s a threat by the state that has no teeth.

It is likely just fluff. But it doesn't have to be. You are falling for the federal government's line that the states are subject to whatever they (the fed's) say. If the states choose not to allow the federal government to enforce unconstitutional law, there is nothing the federal courts can do about it. All the states have to do is ignore them.

I’m not falling for anyone’s lines so don’t try to put words in my mouth. But part of what you say is correct. I have said the same thing about the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment cases; the courts can rule what they want but states will decide if you can carry or not. If the SCOTUS decided that carry was a 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment right; the states would ignore that decision. That’s why the SCOTUS will not rule that way.

As long as we insist on fighting the federal government in federal court, we are going to lose. If we are stupid enough to continue that strategy, we don't even deserve to win.

Again… you want to put words in my mouth to suit your needs. RIF…. I said I don’t want to see this law tested on the arrest of a Federal agent. The stage is set for failure. If the Agent was doing his job I would be on his side. I don’t care what NH does, but when they start arresting LEO’s instead of criminals something is not right. And I find it amazing that they would even threaten it; they are morons.

The state of Tennessee has said manufacturing firearms or silencers within the state are not subject to Federal laws. But what are they going to do when the AFT takes someone into Federal custody for doing it? There is nothing they can do but let it go through the Federal courts. If the courts rule the Tennessee firearms freedom act unconstitutional and send the guy to prison; how does that help?

These laws need to be tried in court; the 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendment argument has to go to the SCOUTS; I don’t see any moves towards making that happen. Are they waiting for a sacrificial lamb?

[Guest HexHead]

But part of what you say is correct. I have said the same thing about the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment cases; the courts can rule what they want but states will decide if you can carry or not. If the SCOTUS decided that carry was a 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment right; the states would ignore that decision. That’s why the SCOTUS will not rule that way.

Using that logic, when the government passed civil rights laws, the states would have been free to ignore them?

I said I don’t want to see this law tested on the arrest of a Federal agent. The stage is set for failure. If the Agent was doing his job I would be on his side. I don’t care what NH does, but when they start arresting LEO’s instead of criminals something is not right. And I find it amazing that they would even threaten it; they are morons.

And if the LEO is breaking a State law, doesn't that make him a criminal by definition?

[shortround]

The states can do whatever they like (until he is out on bond) and the Feds can pardon him when they have him.

How can the feds pardon a state felony conviction?

If the Agent was doing his job I would be on his side.

Regardless? What if the feds outlawed people named Dave?

These laws need to be tried in court; the 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendment argument has to go to the SCOUTS

Again, fighting the feds in federal court - you have lost before you start. You are asking the feds (SCOTUS is a branch of the federal government) to decide for you against themselves. Not gonna happen.

The fact is, the federal government has no say in this, it is written out clearly in the constitution, and we don't need them (SCOTUS/President/Congress=feds) to give permission. They should be asking the states for permission, but they've taken the strategy of don't ask permission, just do it and ignore the constitution. Then the states beg the feds (a creation of the states) to reconsider, a.k.a. fight it in federal court. It's nonsense.

[USMCJG]

And if the LEO is breaking a State law, doesn't that make him a criminal by definition?

+1. Even LEOs are criminals if they are breaking the law.

[DaveTN]

How can the feds pardon a state felony conviction?

With the stroke of a pen.

Regardless? What if the feds outlawed people named Dave?

I don’t understand the question. (If there is one there)

Again, fighting the feds in federal court - you have lost before you start. You are asking the feds (SCOTUS is a branch of the federal government) to decide for you against themselves. Not gonna happen.

The SCOTUS is the interpreter of the Constitution. This is a 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendment issue and they will decide the outcome.

The fact is, the federal government has no say in this, it is written out clearly in the constitution, and we don't need them (SCOTUS/President/Congress=feds) to give permission. They should be asking the states for permission, but they've taken the strategy of don't ask permission, just do it and ignore the constitution. Then the states beg the feds (a creation of the states) to reconsider, a.k.a. fight it in federal court. It's nonsense.

That’s the way it works, and will continue to work.

[DaveTN]

Using that logic, when the government passed civil rights laws, the states would have been free to ignore them?

Yes. But the states chose to abide by them. It was questionable if some local governments would abide and National Guard units were on standby.

There would be no force available to make a state comply. But it’s pointless to argue it; it’s not going to happen.

And if the LEO is breaking a State law, doesn't that make him a criminal by definition?

Yes, if that law is decided to be Constitutional. My point was that I would like to see the law heard and decided on its own merit. Not tainted by the arrest of an Agent doing his job.

[shortround]

With the stroke of a pen.

Are you sure about that? Justice department seems to disagree. From Pardon Information and Instructions :

"2. Federal convictions only

Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those obtained in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President."

I don’t understand the question. (If there is one there)

Then let me make it very clear: If the feds made it a capital offense to be named "Dave", will you support the LEO who is 'doing his job' when he comes to arrest you?

The SCOTUS is the interpreter of the Constitution. This is a 10<SUP>th</SUP> amendment issue and they will decide the outcome.

Negative. Federal goverment has no power to regulate the sale and manufacture of firearms. The constitution is crystal clear in this regard. Therefore, this is not a federal issue, and the sc has no say. The states are not required to go beg the sc for permission to do things that are clearly not prohibited by or even addressed by the constitution. The sc cannot just make up jurisdiction to rule on whatever they want to. Not legally, anyway.

That’s the way it works, and will continue to work.

It may be done that way, but it doesn't work, it has never worked, and it was certainly never intended to be done that way by the founding fathers. That is the problem. The only reason the feds get away with it because so many people have been brainwashed into believing that sc is God and has final say on everything.

The supreme court is not my tyrant. I will claim my rights as affirmed by the constitution. If you want to claim your rights as affirmed by Sonia Sotomayor, that's your decision.

I grow tired of this debate, so this is my final word on this topic.

Edited January 11, 2010 by shortround

[JayC]

Well the truth is as written the states have no authority either under the 2nd and 10th Amendments to regulate firearm ownership either...

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As you can see, the 2nd Amendment covers a right 'of the people' to keep and bear arms... and the 10th Amendment states that the powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the States OR 'to the people'... As best I can tell this argument has not been made before SCOTUS before...

But, as you can see as written the Bill of Rights limited both the federal and state governments from infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

How can the feds pardon a state felony conviction?

Regardless? What if the feds outlawed people named Dave?

[/size][/font]

Again, fighting the feds in federal court - you have lost before you start. You are asking the feds (SCOTUS is a branch of the federal government) to decide for you against themselves. Not gonna happen.

The fact is, the federal government has no say in this, it is written out clearly in the constitution, and we don't need them (SCOTUS/President/Congress=feds) to give permission. They should be asking the states for permission, but they've taken the strategy of don't ask permission, just do it and ignore the constitution. Then the states beg the feds (a creation of the states) to reconsider, a.k.a. fight it in federal court. It's nonsense.

[G27]

Each one of these almost inconsequential baby steps are virtually meaningless by themselves, but as more and more states wake up and realize they have real constituional power under 10A, this will soon become a real movement, imo.

If the States drag their feet challenging these laws, some individual who will be willing to be the test case will eventually. I wish I had the balls to do it, but I don't.

[E4 No More]

Each one of these almost inconsequential baby steps are virtually meaningless by themselves, but as more and more states wake up and realize they have real constituional power under 10A, this will soon become a real movement, imo.

If the States drag their feet challenging these laws, some individual who will be willing to be the test case will eventually. I wish I had the balls to do it, but I don't.

Let's let Lenny do it!