Will Michigan Nullify Federal Gun Laws?

[armedandsafe]

NOTICE: To all 2nd Amendment supporters. If you are planning an overt effort to bring the laws and resolutions of your State to the attention of the Federal Government it is required hereby that you broadcast your intentions and plans on the internet. Make sure you do this well in advance of any planned action, so the feds are not caught by surprise.

To make it easier for you to announce your plans and future actions, notify CEF1959.

There, will that satisfy you?

Pops (who has been referred to as a pansie a time or two.)

 

[fromotoc]

If this becomes oregon law, and the law states that I can legally make a suppressor as long as it is made in oregon and stays within oregon, I believe I will do it. I know others who would, too.

 

[The B]

Man up? Ahem. Bear with me while we discuss what it means to man up in this context.

As y'all undoubtedly know from your careful study of Article III of the US Constitution, to get the issue before any federal court, let alone the Supreme Court (which has discretion to hear or not hear whatever cases it wants), you have to have a live "case or controversy." That means that somebody has to intentionally violate federal firearms law and subject himself to a civil or criminal penalty, invoking the conflicting state law. Only then will his challenge to the statute be ripe. But I know you know this, being so involved in SCOTUS challenge issues.

So where are the brave champions of the Second Amendment and States' Rights lining up in all these states to intentionally subject themselves to felony convictions for violating federal law? If this has passed in multiple states already, the people in those states all look like pansies to me. Not one single person has manned up to do what's necessary to challenge the statute -- get himself arrested. 20 year old leftists get themselves arrested on principle to challenge laws from time to time. People supporting these statutes look like big gas bags by comparison.

If this were passed in Oregon, which one of you is volunteering to be busted by the BATF, have your home and business raided by tactically-equipped teams of federal agents, have your house and business searched while the wife and kids cry on the sofa and your boss looks on skeptically, get taken away in handcuffs, thrown in jail after a complete body cavity search, tried and convicted of a felony forever barring you from firearm possession, and sentenced to federal prison, where you will languish while your case makes its way slowly to the Supreme Court, where you will likely have your conviction upheld based on longstanding precedent?

Not one single person in a state that has passed this sort of statute has shown the cajones. How about you if it's passed in Oregon or Washington? Got the brass? If not, your talk of how relevant a statute like this is amounts to nothing.

In other words: These statutes are silly nothingness, going no where. But they make people feel good and garner votes for supporting politicians from voters naive enough to think any of it matters.

nobody needs to go to prison.. all you need is a letter from the ATF that denies a person a right... "Dear ATF. My state says i can build machineguns and suppressors in my shop, so long as i don't sell them nationally. i intend to, so kiss this."

"Dear Machinegunner, your state law violates federal law, so if you make machineguns and suppressors in your shop, we'll come kick in your door and put you away for ever."

That's all you need for a civil rights lawsuit.

If this becomes oregon law, and the law states that I can legally make a suppressor as long as it is made in oregon and stays within oregon, I believe I will do it. I know others who would, too.

as stated above, not necessary- but as would i. the DEA doesn't make arrests for federal marijuana violations unless there are other factors- they do the raid, take the dope, and leave. you cant convict a person for committing a legal act, and if a person's state law says it's legal, it's going to be really hard to convince a jury that that person needs to go to federal prison. it's not worth the time or money, so the DEA doesn't arrest unless they can tack on other crimes.

the same would hold for the ATF. i would be perfectly willing to head into the shop and start turning out suppressors, were my state to back me up.

 

[CEF1959]

Your description of what it takes to support a "civil rights lawsuit" against the BATF is simply an incorrect statement of federal jurisdiction. You aren't describing a ripe controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[The B]

yes, it easily fits ripe controversy.. if you disagree, you're gonna have to tell me why.

as a matter of fact, this is Montana's whole intent. I haven't followed their progress all that closely, so i don't know where they stand at the moment, but it's been the plan from the beginning to have someone with a clean record notify the ATF of his intent to produce suppressors under the new law. Once the ATF replies that he cannot, under unconsitutional federal law (and the NFA is an unconsitutional law), then the state will support, or even file their own lawsuit against the federal government. Since this is a MAJOR and controversial issue- a state contesting the constitutional authority of the federal govrnment- it most definately will go through.

 

[CEF1959]

If you'd like me to tutor you on justiciability and federal jurisdiction, PM me, and we'll discuss an appropriate rate. Your understanding is incorrect.

 

[treemanx]

CEF-

You gotta chill with the arrogance and name calling here, if you want to get your opinion across. I actually understand and mostly agree with what your saying.....but its not the entire picture.

Unless people have the courage of their convictions, they will never inact the change they are seeking. Many of these kinds of State Laws have been played with recently, and it seems like just a bunch of smoke and BS because none of the States have really stood up for it yet.

Yet, as others have mentioned in this thread, it IS a step in the right direction. I would rather know that there is still people in this country trying to change things for the better and watch them try to pass State laws that go nowhere......then to have everyone feel as though there is nothing left to be done. Maybe these laws are ineffectual right now, but we cant see the future to know if these were the fledgling steps of a positive movement for gun rights. I would rather see them come and maybe fissle out, then to not see them at all.

 

[CEF1959]

Easy, Tiger. We're just having a good old fashioned high-spirited disagreement. If I (as a minority on these sorts of points) can stand the heat, so can everyone else. If people don't know what they are talking about, they shouldn't post. And if they do, an open forum should call them out. I get slammed a lot worse than I give, and I'm not crying. In fact, any point of view inconsistent with hard right dogma gets hit really hard around here. That's OK. We're all grownups capable taking a punch.

If people can call others "haters" just because the other person disagrees with whatever their point of view is, I don't see anything wrong with calling people in Tennessee "pansies by comparison" when comparing them with Med Marijuana supporters who have had the guts to go to jail for their convictions.

But let's get back on point: Is it worthwhile to pass legislation purporting to tell the federal government what its authority is? I say no; others disagree. Time to move on.

And thanks for the advice about what I "gotta" to do. I'll file that advice appropriately.

 

[The B]

If you'd like me to tutor you on justiciability and federal jurisdiction, PM me, and we'll discuss an appropriate rate. Your understanding is incorrect.

i think a lot of people here would like an education, CEF. tell us all.

 

[CEF1959]

There are gunsmiths on here who know about gunsmithing and offer their services for a fee. There are FFLs on here who know about FFL and offer their services for a fee. Then there are people who don't know diddly about either and throw their points of view out for free. Lots and lots of them. And the worst of them continue to mislead people about things they don't know squat about even after they've been corrected.

 

[treemanx]

Easy, Tiger. We're just having a good old fashioned high-spirited disagreement. If I (as a minority on these sorts of points) can stand the heat, so can everyone else. If people don't know what they are talking about, they shouldn't post. And if they do, an open forum should call them out. I get slammed a lot worse than I give, and I'm not crying. In fact, any point of view inconsistent with hard right dogma gets hit really hard around here. That's OK. We're all grownups capable taking a punch.

If people can call others "haters" just because the other person disagrees with whatever their point of view is, I don't see anything wrong with calling people in Tennessee "pansies by comparison" when comparing them with Med Marijuana supporters who have had the guts to go to jail for their convictions.

But let's get back on point: Is it worthwhile to pass legislation purporting to tell the federal government what its authority is? I say no; others disagree. Time to move on.

And thanks for the advice about what I "gotta" to do. I'll file that advice appropriately.

File that where ever you choose, just remember noone likes an arrogant know-it-all.

Trying to compare this with medical marijuana is childish at best. The people trying to "stand" for their state right to legally smoke pot are only putting themselves in the line of fire because they are addicts. They would be doing it whether the state was saying it was legal or not because they want to get "high". Your talking about apples and oranges here bub, and probably not impressing anyone but yourself.

I get the distinct feeling that you are playing devils advocate here, which is fine.

 

[Jamie6.5]

There's one thing about free advice,...
"Most the time it's worth exactly what you paid for it!"

My apologies to Will Rogers (or maybe it was W.C. Fields) if I butchered it!

 

[CEF1959]

File that where ever you choose, just remember noone likes an arrogant know-it-all.

Trying to compare this with medical marijuana is childish at best. The people trying to "stand" for their state right to legally smoke pot are only putting themselves in the line of fire because they are addicts. They would be doing it whether the state was saying it was legal or not because they want to get "high". Your talking about apples and oranges here bub, and probably not impressing anyone but yourself.

I get the distinct feeling that you are playing devils advocate here, which is fine.

I know. Being well-informed is out of fashion these days. It's cool to just get things off the internet and Fox News and call that good. A fact-based world is really inconvenient when it messes with your point of view. It might cause a person to lose his faith in ... for example ... Bigfoot. I get that.

Now what was that thing you said about name-calling?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Name calling? So you're saying that a Fox news watcher is less informed than who?
MSNBC watcher?
ABC watcher?
CBS watcher?
CNN watchers?
Spare me. Fox has industry analysts just like every other network. Most are better than CNN offers. MSNBC tends to get theirs from Huffington or Salon.
CBS and ABC says whatever they want.

It's easy to spot a leftist progressive nowadays. (S)He attacks Fox news as a source of info, even though all they often do is quote the same people every other news program does, just different quotes.
Major Garrett asks the toughest questions of all at Presidential press conferences. That's why Robert Gibbs rarely calls on him!
During the national conventions even that great leftist politico Ed Rendell of PA gun banning fame said live on the air that Fox had the most balanced coverage.

Don't sacrifice your credibility CEF. Leave your opinions of news coverage out of it.
Most people that criticize Fox don't know the difference between commentary and news. Which is why they spend so much time slamming O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck.

 

[treemanx]

I know. Being well-informed is out of fashion these days. It's cool to just get things off the internet and Fox News and call that good. A fact-based world is really inconvenient when it messes with your point of view. It might cause a person to lose his faith in ... for example ... Bigfoot. I get that.

Now what was that thing you said about name-calling?

Being well informed, and being an arrogant know-it-all are two different things. You can be the first, without being the latter.

It is cool to get articles concerning current events off the internet or Fox News to post and discuss, although I dont remember ever trying to say something was a fact from either source. You just cant open your preverbial "mouth" without being arrogant, condesending, or sarcastic, can you?

What I'd like to know, is how you feel as though you have gotten the "facts" about anything youve discussed here? If your information, or "facts", arent coming from the internet or the news, you must be Secretary Of State CEF1959 to have all the "facts". And if thats the case, you have got your finger on the pulse of the "facts" and I apologise. Otherwise, your "facts" arent any different from any other persons "facts" because they are based on the little bit of information everyone recieves from the sources you referred to. All we can do is have the best informed opinions we can, based on the information we recieve from the souces that report occurances.

I appreciate and respect your opinion, just as anyone elses. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But sorry to burst your bubble here, you dont have any more "facts" than anyone else.

 

[CEF1959]

Being well informed, and being an arrogant know-it-all are two different things. You can be the first, without being the latter.

It is cool to get articles concerning current events off the internet or Fox News to post and discuss, although I dont remember ever trying to say something was a fact from either source.

What I'd like to know, is how you feel as though you have gotten the "facts" about anything youve discussed here? If your information, or "facts", arent coming from the internet or the news, you must be Secretary Of State CEF1959 to have all the "facts". And if thats the case, you have got your finger on the pulse of the "facts" and I apologise. Otherwise, your "facts" arent any different from any other persons "facts" because they are based on the little bit of information everyone recieves from the sources you referred to. All we can do is have the best informed opinions we can, based on the information we recieve from the souces that report occurances.

I appreciate and respect your opinion, just as anyone elses. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But sorry to burst your bubble here, you dont have any more "facts" than anyone else.

We were talking about federal jurisdiction -- what it would take to get a states' rights law such as that passed in Michigan -- before the Supreme Court. A poster made a misstatement. I said he was wrong. And he was. This happens to be a subject where I know what I'm talking about; he didn't.

If the subject is gunsmithing, or competition shooting, or building an AR, or reloading, or knives, or electrical work, or auto mechanics, or wall papering, or plumbing, or a billion other things, you won't find me spouting off like I know what I'm talking about. But I KNOW federal jurisdiction, and if someone spouts off nonsense about it, I'll call him on it. I would expect the same if I spouted off about gunsmithing. Sorry if that's inconvenient.

But let's face it: If you didn't disagree with my point of view, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. People most often call an attitude "arrogant" when they hate the message and are really ticked at being shown to have been wrong. "I don't disagree with what you said but how you said it." Whatever.

 

[treemanx]

If you look at my first post in this thread, I stated that I mostly agreed with what you said, and tried to let you know your point delivery method might not be productive. Im not trying to say you are wrong, just that your attitude is turning people off from giving you credibility. I can tell you are an intelligent guy, and well informed. I am merely just letting you know you might be rubbing people the wrong way.

I did disagree with your comparison with this to med. mar., however, and I let you know my opinion differed from yours. You seem to have taken it as though I was attacking your intelligence, which I wasnt. Just your attitude.

 

[CEF1959]

If we spent time worrying about the attitudes of people on these forums, we'd be bound up in knots.

Let's let this one go and agree to disagree with mutual respect. I think the thread has run its course.

 

[treemanx]

Fair enough, take care~ tree.

 

[The B]

CEF... you've called me out, but you haven't told me why i'm wrong- all you've done is say "you're wrong," essentially.

i don't know where you got all your expertise, and you haven't qualified your claims by telling us, but I got my basic education on the matter in college. 4 years studying criminal justice didn't make me anything even close to an expert on jurisprudence, but i did take several classes on, or related to constitutional law specifically... so while i might be off-center, i'm not just plain wrong.

you need to spell it out. and since you've made some claims, back it up with qualification. or you're just gonna look like the Cliff Claven you appear to be.