General Categories > Laws and Legislation

LB451 Hearing

(1/2) > >>

depserv:
I went to a hearing last Wednesday with the Judiciary committee of the state legislature, where a bill was discussed that says essentially that any new gun control law coming from the feds could not be enforced in our state (LB4510. As I understand it, several states are considering such bills.

Ernie Chambers, well known as a hard core liberal bigot who almost makes Feinstein look like a patriot, argued emphatically against it; his main point was that the supremacy clause in the US Constitution would make such a state law unconstitutional, and could lead to a dangerous confrontation between state and federal police.

This seems like a good argument. Until you remember that the only reason states are considering bills like this is that traitors in the federal government are taking the concept of reasonable restrictions to a dangerously absurd degree in regard to the 2nd Amendment. So the obvious answer to the argument made by Chambers is that if there can be exceptions to a law that includes the words "shall not be infringed," there can be exceptions to the supremacy clause too. And a state law saying essentially that a law passed by the feds that is unconstitutional can not be enforced in our state, because we will not allow that sort of lawlessness here, would seem to be a reasonable exception.

A sheriff who was obviously a loyal American testified in favor of the bill. Chambers asked him if he would try to arrest feds who came to his area making an illegal gun raid, and he said yes he would. Chambers of course pointed out that that would lead to a dangerous confrontation, that we would lose.

I'm not sure we would lose it, but there is a good chance we would. The possibility of losing though does not seem to be a valid reason to avoid taking a stand in defense of our country. But it does show the importance in doing everything we can to keep the federal government from making any more gun control laws that are in violation of the Constitution, as all of the ones being proposed now are.

NENick:
Why would we lose a confrontation? That Sheriff has the power to deputize as many people as necessary to enforce the law. If that meant deputizing 200 people, then he could do it.

Dan W:
The Supremacy Clause could only be invoked if the disputed federal action was Constitutional.

just_me_mongo:
The Sheriff (sworn to uphlold the Constitution), has a right to arrest anyone acting on "unlawful" orders.  Anyone (govt. employee or not) can act on an unlawful order.

"A sheriff who was obviously a loyal American testified in favor of the bill. Chambers asked him if he would try to arrest feds who came to his area making an illegal gun raid, and he said yes he would. Chambers of course pointed out that that would lead to a dangerous confrontation, that we would lose."

So this just shows that Chambers must fear and support the all powerful federal govt.  Even if they are wrong, he must be ok with their unlawful actions. 

This is why I do not understand why people vote for him or any other politician like him.

Chambers is more worried about "confrontation."  He should be concerned about the Constitution & protecting it.

depserv:
Look how many people voted for Obama, and he's almost as bad as Chambers.  There are unfortunately a lot of people who would rather be taken care of than be free.  That's why freedom has been such a rare commodity historically. 

The difference between us and many other nations is we have a body of law that keeps even a majority from making that choice.  But only if the law is obeyed.  And if it isn't, what can be done about it?  That's the question we need to be looking into now.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page