Blocking Federal Gun Control

[rkwhyte2]

I you ever want "the good stuff", I'll give you my friends and family rate.

So double the normal rate.

 

[HoughMade]

So double the normal rate.

 

[MarkC]

You guys, the elite of INGO, don't seem to understand the frustration of us plebes. We are completely frustrated and have nowhere to turn. Everything seems to be stacked against us, the schools, higher education, the media, etc., etc. Even those who purport to be on our side aren't. They don't really give a good crap about us or what we think. You work hard all your life only to see what little you have accumulated sucked away. I have nothing against anyone. I actually support a much more liberal immigration policy than the actual laws allow. I just don't support open borders. I don't support people coming here just to be wards of the state. We can't take care of the people we already have who can't or won't do for themselves. I want us to be able to take care of those who can't. I want to be able to take care of those who fought for us and now need us to take care of them. We can't do that. I'm very sorry you have to sully yourselves by interacting with the rabble. I know it must be hard for you. I, for one, appreciate that you deign to explain to us that which we already know in order that we fully understand your superiority. I just wish you had some inkling of what us commoners actually feel. We aren't all the torch and pitchfork mob you always portray us to be.

I echo what T.Lex said. I am no better (or worse) than anyone else on INGO; we each have our areas of expertise, training, and experience.

Sometimes, like with a recent thread where self-defense law was horribly misstated, some of us saw the need to correct misunderstandings that could lead to severe criminal and civil ramifications. I have substantial experience in that area, and I do not want to see any of us get into avoidable trouble.

As for this particular thread, I think the theme has been that both sides, strong liberals and strong conservatives, want to see the parts of the Constitution and federal law that they do not like nullified without going through either legislation to change it or court action to change how it is interpreted. Our founders intended for it to be hard to change the Constitution, and with good reason.

When shortcuts occur, rights are eroded. I strongly believe that the system should be made to work. If we take away some disfavored person's rights, no matter how bad we think that person is, we have to consider what might happen when YOU become the disfavored one. That is why after all my years in law enforcement I don't have a problem working with and for the defense bar; I just want the system to work right, to keep applying the rule of law. To and for all of us.

I and the others on INGO are no better than anyone else. But, like most people, we have knowledge and skills, and using that knowledge and skills, we can contribute positively.

Or, in the words of the founder of Faber College:

 

[Denny347]

You're acting like this is a representative republic according to the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

So 18th century.

The reality is, we have to ignore the principles enshrined in the Constitution in order to protect the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

 

[Denny347]

You guys, the elite of INGO

Do you think that what you perceive might not be an accurate representation of what is?

 

[Herr Vogel]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says the States are obligated to enforce Federal law. I must have missed it.

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution.

As an initial matter, Congress may not simply “commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.
...
While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.

We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.

The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power “thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Pennhurst, supra, at 17. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns in our federal system. That system “rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ ” Bond, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999) ). For this reason, “the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.” New York, supra, at 162. Otherwise the two-government system established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.

Now the other parts of the bill, the part that confers to the courts and law enforcement agencies the duty to protect the RKBA, the part that supposedly strips any federal agent of the authority to enforce laws violating the RKBA, and the part that criminalizes the enforcement said laws? That's where this gets, to put it diplomatically, interesting.

 

[Denny347]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says the States are obligated to enforce Federal law. I must have missed it.
Now the other parts of the bill, the part that confers to the courts and law enforcement agencies the duty to protect the RKBA, the part that supposedly strips any federal agent of the authority to enforce laws violating the RKBA, and the part that criminalizes the enforcement said laws? That's where this gets, to put it diplomatically, interesting.

Therein lies the stupidity of the law from the OP. States cannot enforce Federal Law but they cannot void nor block it either. Nor can they block Federal Agents from enforcing Federal Law in their State. They also cannot keep local LE from assisting Federal LE enforcing Federal Laws.

 

[Vigilant]

This thread has potential for greatness, at least three lawyers involved, with ZERO billable hours!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Therein lies the stupidity of the law from the OP. States cannot enforce Federal Law but they cannot void nor block it either. Nor can they block Federal Agents from enforcing Federal Law in their State. They also cannot keep local LE from assisting Federal LE enforcing Federal Laws.

But isn't this exactly what sanctuary cities/states are doing? Forbidding their local LEO from cooperating with Federal law enforcement?

 

[Denny347]

But isn't this exactly what sanctuary cities/states are doing? Forbidding their local LEO from cooperating with Federal law enforcement?

And it's 100% wrong. Seems like I heard the Marion County Sheriff's Office say something similar about not assisting ICE a year or 2 ago regarding their prisoners?

 

[BlaineBug]

But isn't this exactly what sanctuary cities/states are doing? Forbidding their local LEO from cooperating with Federal law enforcement?

The only reason this is working is because the Federal Government is allowing it work. Totally absurd. They pick and choose who they allow to commit crimes and get away with murder.

 

[Denny347]

The only reason this is working is because the Federal Government is allowing it work. Totally absurd. They pick and choose who they allow to commit crimes and get away with murder.

Limited resources. Same reason that we arrest someone that is here illegally and they are not held. No one for ICE to pick them up except in special circumstances. They just do not have the resources. It would take decades to PROPERLY hire and train enough ICE agents that are really required. Then they would need to add more Federal immigration courts, more judges, more prosecutors, lawyers, holding facilities, etc etc. 2nd-3rd-4th order effect

 

[HoughMade]

Please show me where in the Constitution it says the States are obligated to enforce Federal law. I must have missed it....

I think it's easier for someone to show us where anyone in this thread​ said that the states have the obligation to enforce federal law.

 

[BlaineBug]

Limited resources. Same reason that we arrest someone that is here illegally and they are not held. No one for ICE to pick them up except in special circumstances. They just do not have the resources. It would take decades to PROPERLY hire and train enough ICE agents that are really required. Then they would need to add more Federal immigration courts, more judges, more prosecutors, lawyers, holding facilities, etc etc. 2nd-3rd-4th order effect

Limited resources my butt. They always make the mistake of releasing them on the gosh damn wrong side of the border. Why even apprehend them to begin with? The outcome is precisely the same!

 

[BigRed]

Does Indiana have this?

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/20...e-votes-to-nullify-federal-gun-control-23-10/

Good on Missouri!

 

[BigRed]

Nullification isn't real.

Yes it is.

 

[MarkC]

Wishing and hoping may work for Dusty Springfield, but, in Constitutional law, not so much.....


[video=youtube;gAdTsAKvVTU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAdTsAKvVTU[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

This thread has potential for greatness, at least three lawyers involved, with ZERO billable hours!

Shows what you know.

.1

 

[Expat]

Shows what you know.

.1

Probably the same 6 minutes billed on 3 or 4 files...

 

[MarkC]

Shows what you know.

.1

Six Minutes!

(My hourly rate is kind of low, but I always bill 37.5 hours each week......)