Missouri Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Control

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

.. FJ. In a case of Obama successfully circumventing the US Constitution (it seems to me that this is what he's striving for, on this issue) .. will we see you, finally, taking a stand against him, in defence of the Constitution ? Will you join with others here who'd want to see him made accountable for those actions ?

YES or NO ?

Good luck on getting a one word answer being a -- yes! -Tyr

[jimnyc]

From what I'm reading it DOES appear that the supremacy clause applies to federal laws and such passed by congress. I don't see why the states cannot overrule an executive order, as it completely bypasses congress. Would be a good argument for the courts should a state tell the feds to F off on this issue.

[fj1200]

Does that mean you can't name one that doesn't violate the Constitution's flat ban on any gun regulations by government?

I'm not surprised.

That's why we have courts.

Actually no-- they are not!!! Not when they come into direct and immediate action voiding the
the 2nd Amendment.
There is a reason that it was Amendment number TWO
There is a reason the Feds dont just say turn in your guns now!
Thats because the bastards would get the bullets first and at super sonic speed!
And thats exactly why the 2ND AMENDMENT WAS CREATED.
...
You should be denouncing the ffing black monkey in charge instead of trying to reason how its not that bad a thing he is doing....

None of that addresses the issue. We have a process in this country.

Your bigoted prattle aside, BO is not really the subject of this thread.

In a case of Obama successfully circumventing the US Constitution...

I stand against him all the time. It doesn't mean you've proven your premise however.

Good luck on getting a one word answer being a -- yes! -Tyr

Yes. BO sucks. And so does the unsound Constitutional logic you employ.

From what I'm reading it DOES appear that the supremacy clause applies to federal laws and such passed by congress. I don't see why the states cannot overrule an executive order, as it completely bypasses congress. Would be a good argument for the courts should a state tell the feds to F off on this issue.

EOs are generally couched in previous legislation that has passed Congress so are still presumably supreme. If they don't, or are an overreach, they can be challenged in court as with his immigration EO; successful so far IIRC.

[jimnyc]

EOs are generally couched in previous legislation that has passed Congress so are still presumably supreme. If they don't, or are an overreach, they can be challenged in court as with his immigration EO; successful so far IIRC.

Presumably being the key word. It's not often that gun regulation is done via EO's. And not all EO's are "federal laws passed by congress". Can go a lot of different directions. Generally speaking, they're rarely contested. I'm confident that any gun regulations issued via EO will end up in court. Immigration and gun control are very different. Lots of laws based around immigration, not so much with gun regulation. With that said - I don't see what he is doing being reversed.

[fj1200]

Presumably being the key word. It's not often that gun regulation is done via EO's. And not all EO's are "federal laws passed by congress". Can go a lot of different directions. Generally speaking, they're rarely contested. I'm confident that any gun regulations issued via EO will end up in court. Immigration and gun control are very different. Lots of laws based around immigration, not so much with gun regulation. With that said - I don't see what he is doing being reversed.

There isn't any presumably about a duly passed law, it is supreme. Generally was more key IMO if his orders do rely on previous legislation. I do think BO has set a record with his orders being contested, rightly of course, but the good thing is that they can be reversed in one year and 11 days.

[jimnyc]

There isn't any presumably about a duly passed law, it is supreme. Generally was more key IMO if his orders do rely on previous legislation. I do think BO has set a record with his orders being contested, rightly of course, but the good thing is that they can be reversed in one year and 11 days.

How is an executive order a "passed" law? I think it's just that, an order, but one that carries the full weight of the law - but wasn't a "passed" law via congress as laws are supposed to be made. Either that, or have some sort of prior authorization or similar within prior laws, which I am unaware of for these particular regulations.

[fj1200]

How is an executive order a "passed" law? I think it's just that, an order, but one that carries the full weight of the law - but wasn't a "passed" law via congress as laws are supposed to be made. Either that, or have some sort of prior authorization or similar within prior laws, which I am unaware of for these particular regulations.

Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).^[1]

I don't know the prior authorization either but if it is present then the order stands for 1 year and 11 days or it gets challenged.

[jimnyc]

I don't know the prior authorization either but if it is present then the order stands for 1 year and 11 days or it gets challenged.

That's kinda what I just said, fucker! Full force of the law, but just not "passed" law like your typical laws via congress. Different, but maybe the same "power"?

But my next thing is - I'm confident that the supremacy clause fits 100% in most cases, federal law superceding state law. But has an EO ever been challenged, where just one state wants to ignore it? I honestly don't know.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

From what I'm reading it DOES appear that the supremacy clause applies to federal laws and such passed by congress. I don't see why the states cannot overrule an executive order, as it completely bypasses congress. Would be a good argument for the courts should a state tell the feds to F off on this issue.

Sanctuary cities are given leeway to tell Feds(Federal law to f-off) , why can't states?
Answer is states can and should. Especially to this treasonous piece of shit prez...-Tyr

obama wins either way it seems as he either gets his way in illegal orders or else he causes disunity, distrust, greater discord and hatred.
He does not think this stuff up--his handlers do-- the globalists(and allies-muslims., etc) and their agenda...

[Little-Acorn]

That's why we have courts.

TRANSLATION: No, I can't name one gun control law that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment's flat ban on govt regulation of guns.

[fj1200]

That's kinda what I just said, fucker! Full force of the law, but just not "passed" law like your typical laws via congress. Different, but maybe the same "power"?

But my next thing is - I'm confident that the supremacy clause fits 100% in most cases, federal law superceding state law. But has an EO ever been challenged, where just one state wants to ignore it? I honestly don't know.

Sorry, wasn't sure. I'm not sure the answer either but this law goes beyond EOs and anything passed in the past 7 years.

Sanctuary cities are given leeway to tell Feds(Federal law to f-off) , why can't states?
Answer is states can and should.

Answer is neither states nor cities can and/or should be able to violate the Constitution. It's a rule of law thing.

TRANSLATION: No, I can't name one gun control law that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment's flat ban on govt regulation of guns.

You'll fall short in translating when you don't speak AWESOME-ese. The correct question though for you to answer is what Constitutional laws are they going to ignore?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sorry, wasn't sure. I'm not sure the answer either but this law goes beyond EOs and anything passed in the past 7 years.



Answer is neither states nor cities can and/or should be able to violate the Constitution. It's a rule of law thing.



You'll fall short in translating when you don't speak AWESOME-ese. The correct question though for you to answer is what Constitutional laws are they going to ignore?

Sorry, wasn't sure. I'm not sure the answer either but this law goes beyond EOs and anything passed in the past 7 years.

What damn law? Its an obama illegal, Executive Order , not a damn law.
You really should stop confusing the two.-Tyr

[fj1200]

What damn law? Its an obama illegal, Executive Order , not a damn law.
You really should stop confusing the two.-Tyr

Apparently I'm the only one between the two of us not confused.

-----

... It reads, in part:

All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

...

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...control-23-10/

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Apparently I'm the only one between the two of us not confused.

But for the fact that Obama's latest gun decrees are not Executive Orders . . . They have no force of law; they will not be entered into the Federal Register.

[Gunny]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights

Updated at 3:45: Revised to include response to Gov. Abbott’s speech and add reference to the Convention of States.
Updated at 1:54: Revised to include comments from Gov. Abbott’s speech.

<aside class="DMNReferWrapper pull-right panel-flat-medium content-aside sld tf1f1">Related

• Abbott's call for a convention of the states is a recipe for mayhem
• Editorial: Why Abbott's call for a constitutional convention sets a dangerous precedent
• Obama rips into NRA at televised town hall on gun safety
• Texas Republicans take aim at Obama over executive order on guns
• Armed group not ready to end wildlife refuge occupation
• Floyd: No handouts for anti-government militia zealots
• Jesse Walker: No, the Oregon occupiers are not ‘terrorists’

</aside> Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.”
“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.

More ...

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...s-rights.html/