Here we go (again)

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Watching how quickly the Democrats are pushing us left on 2A, we all need to think about what we’re going to do if they declare a complete ban on scary-looking weapons, or a 200% tax on ammunition, or other confiscatory orders. Please don’t publish any of your plans here, but I myself plan complete and willing compliance with whatever our Pedophile in Chief and Superspreader Vice President come up with.
     

    pcfixer

    Ultimate Member
    May 24, 2009
    5,948
    Marylandstan
    https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2021/01/20/resistance-bidens-gun-control-begun-n40691

    There will be alot of resistance to any gun bill in congress and any EO this administration signs.

    So, federal law enforcement could still enforce federal law without the stand standing in their way, but individual officers and federal agencies could be sued in state court for doing so, and any federal law enforcement officer who enforced a federal law within the state borders of Missouri would be subject to “punishment” by being ineligible to be hired by any law enforcement agency in the state.

    I don’t think that’s going to fly in federal court, which is where this bill would be challenged if it were to become law and actually enforced. Similar measures, like Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, have been overturned by federal courts, and while the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the case, I don’t have much hope that SCOTUS is going to be convinced that the feds have no role to play in enforcing federal gun laws in the various states.

    That’s why the stronger approach, legally speaking, is to borrow as much as possible from California’s “sanctuary state” law dealing with illegal immigration and cooperation with ICE. T
    hat law was designed to withstand constitutional scrutiny thanks to a decision called Printz vs. U.S., in which the Court ruled that while state courts had an obligation to help enforce federal law, state and local law enforcement agencies did not.
    If they chose to do so, that was fine too, but they could not be compelled to participate in actively enforcing federal statutes (in this particular case, certain interim provisions of the Brady background check bill).

    Declaring that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to enforce its own laws in the states, however, is a very different argument, and I just don’t see the Court going for it. If lawmakers are truly serious about providing Second Amendment Sanctuary protections from the Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Schumer attack on the right to keep and bear arms, they should start with a solid foundation in line with the Printz decision instead of trying to blaze a new path in Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,263
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom