Anyone read this yet?

[Noahp45]

Makes some good points

Dear Gun People, Follow the Lead of the Weed People | Tenth Amendment Center

The federal government isn't ever going to limit the federal government. You have the blueprint. Now get busy and start building.

tenthamendmentcenter.com

 

[gryphnrider]

Makes some good points

Dear Gun People, Follow the Lead of the Weed People | Tenth Amendment Center

The federal government isn't ever going to limit the federal government. You have the blueprint. Now get busy and start building.

tenthamendmentcenter.com

Thanks nice article

 

[snorko]

For weed you had the enticement of expanded tax revenue for the states as a motivation. 2nd amendment issues lack that for the most part. I would also say the bulk of the proactive work being done IS at the state and local level with the national fight being defensive mostly.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Brilliant, let's get constitutional carry going then push to have a sanctuary law put on the books.

Jim lucas seems to be a mover and a shaker let's call him and tell him to get the **** on it.

 

[indyjohn]

That is a phenomenal point of view!

 

[Twangbanger]

The article is kinda silly, because in the example of weed, there's a federal prohibition, but the DEA defers to local police for most of the enforcement. So states can legalize weed and fail to enforce the federal prohibition, thereby defying and nullifying it.

But what's the analogy with guns? Unlike weed, guns are already legal in 50 states. There's currently no federal ban to "defy." And for the federal stuff that is on the books (FFL laws), the Feds have their own special Police (ATF) for enforcing it, so it's not really possible for local police to "nullify" them because it's not currently in their enforcement scope anyway.

What kinds of federal prohibitions on guns do people get commonly arrested by local police for, that could stop being prosecuted by local officials? And if you're a Legal Eagle and can dig and find something, what percentage of gun charges does that actually account for?

Again, same as with weed, most gun laws aren't federal, they're state and local. And the states that have them, are darned sure enthusiastic about enforcing them.

The author stops short of offering specific examples of what to do, because he doesn't have any. This is just another Libertarian taking shots at Trumpers. MRJarrell with a blog, essentially.

 

[Ingomike]

Pipe dream.

Weed has the taxation angle, the sedative for the masses angle, not a crusade against it angle.

2A has organized opposition with passion and bloody shirts, the taxation angle goes to the opposition (think all AR NFA taxes states may add more), local cops are going to look away at a mag that holds 3X the legal limit, all major cities are against 2A.

Sorry to be party pooper...

 

[Noahp45]

The article is kinda silly, because in the example of weed, there's a federal prohibition, but the DEA defers to local police for most of the enforcement. So states can legalize weed and fail to enforce the federal prohibition.

But what's the analogy with guns? Unlike weed, guns are already legal in 50 states. And there's no currently no federal ban to "defy." And for the federal stuff that is on the books (FFL laws), the Feds have their own special Police (ATF) for enforcing it.

What kinds of federal prohibitions on guns do people get commonly arrested by local police for, that could stop being prosecuted by local officials? And if you're a Legal Eagle and can dig and find something, what percentage of gun charges does that actually account for?

Again, same as with weed, most gun laws aren't federal, they're state and local. And the states that have them, are darned sure enthusiastic about enforcing them.

The author stops short of offering specific examples of what to do, because he doesn't have any. This is just another Libertarian taking shots at Trumpers, while offering no specific direction.

I think the author was trying to point out that the feds truly have no power with out the states help. So if Biden says " Ar rifles are illegal " some states could say not here

 

[Twangbanger]

I think the author was trying to point out that the feds truly have no power with out the states help. So if Biden says " Ar rifles are illegal " some states could say not here

Granted, that would be a case for action. Local sheriffs could designate "gun sanctuary zones," for example, as some have said they will (and hooray for them, and more power to them).

But again, under a prospective Federal ban, citizens still have to risk being a felon if the ATF decides to make an example of them. Not every gun-owner wants to live the fearful life of a pothead. That's why they keep sending money to the NRA, electing the better of two evils (Trump over Hillary), and pleading their case in courts - all actions which the author denigrates in his article (and the latter of which produced the Heller decision, let's not forget).

Gun owners don't want to be "10th Amendment Felons." We want our guns to be legal at the Federal level.

I think this guy is just pissed voters elected Trump instead of Gary Johnson.

 

[DadSmith]

The article is kinda silly, because in the example of weed, there's a federal prohibition, but the DEA defers to local police for most of the enforcement. So states can legalize weed and fail to enforce the federal prohibition, thereby defying and nullifying it.

But what's the analogy with guns? Unlike weed, guns are already legal in 50 states. There's currently no federal ban to "defy." And for the federal stuff that is on the books (FFL laws), the Feds have their own special Police (ATF) for enforcing it, so it's not really possible for local police to "nullify" them because it's not currently in their enforcement scope anyway.

What kinds of federal prohibitions on guns do people get commonly arrested by local police for, that could stop being prosecuted by local officials? And if you're a Legal Eagle and can dig and find something, what percentage of gun charges does that actually account for?

Again, same as with weed, most gun laws aren't federal, they're state and local. And the states that have them, are darned sure enthusiastic about enforcing them.

The author stops short of offering specific examples of what to do, because he doesn't have any. This is just another Libertarian taking shots at Trumpers. MRJarrell with a blog, essentially.

No ban to defy except the NFA. It has taken more 2nd Amendment freedom from Americans than any other law on the books to-date. Defy the NFA or challenge it in our new supposedly conservative constitution loving SCOTUS.

 

[Hornett]

LOL
Ingomike is right.
Those weren't State officials ambushing Randy Weavers family.

 

[Twangbanger]

No ban to defy except the NFA. It has taken more 2nd Amendment freedom from Americans than any other law on the books to-date. Defy the NFA or challenge it in our new supposedly conservative constitution loving SCOTUS.

But the article writer stated he doesn't believe pleading our case in court is the path forward.

What arrests are state and local law enforcement currently making under the NFA, which could be defiantly discontinued to "nullify" that law?

 

[DadSmith]

The only way to get gun rights back that were taken is through court or a major shift in a congress that has a will to get rid of the NFA. Right now we are defending trying to preserve a few rights we have left. We should be attacking and forcing the anti 2nd Amendment people on the defensive side while we attack. Let's stop defending the few rights they have left us and go after the ones they've taken away.

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

Very good advise.. if you ever listen to Tony Katz on 93.1 he ALWAYS preaches that ALL politics are local and I definitely have to agree.. I seriously doubt the feds would declare war on a entire state or even city.
But you will notice from.Reagan to present, there has been a push to take away state sovereignty and that is why.. Feds want absolute authority, it is the only way they can force the nwo down the whole countries throat.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[TangoFoxtrot]

I think the author was trying to point out that the feds truly have no power with out the states help. So if Biden says " Ar rifles are illegal " some states could say not here

I agree with that premise yes it's a different situation but there are lessons to be learned there.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

 

[Ark]

I think it is a critical error to believe the slack that has been cut to "legal" weed on the federal level will in any way, shape, or form be extended to gun owners who violate federal law. They will come in to your state, they will come to your home, and they will kill you, just like they've done numerous times before. Losers laying on the sofa puffing weed are not a threat to the power of the state. Gun owners are.

 

[71silverbullet]

The states will never go along with that. Govt will threaten to withhold federal funds to state that don't comply.
Marijuana brings in more revenue than is received from the feds.

 

[mike8170]

The states will never go along with that. Govt will threaten to withhold federal funds to state that don't comply.
Marijuana brings in more revenue than is received from the feds.

Something I have been kicking around in my head for a while. How about the States withhold funding to the Federal government when the feds exceed Constitutional boundaries? Maybe even use an algorithm or formula to only provide enough funding to cover the 13th Enumerated Powers as stated in the Constitution? If enough of the flyover states did this, maybe the swamp could be reigned in. It is evident that electing someone to Congress or the Senate to represent the We the People and the State is just smoke and mirrors since so many are entrenched in the swamp. Just something I thought of reading the secession discussion thread, which I probably should have posted in.

 

[Whisk604]

Isn't that the same process as the 2A sanctuary counties. I'm in jasper County and we passed that last year. Some states have done it at the state level but indiana is only doing it at the county level. If enough counties passed it I would think it might become a statewide idea.

 

[tbhausen]

Anybody who actually reads a 4473 carefully shouldn’t be holding up recreational weed users as any kind of example. I look at legalization of weed as just another way to take away guns in the long run.

Someone needs to point the author to The Bracken Collection, essay number 16. I don’t think most local law-enforcement would enforce new, more heavy-handed gun restrictions.