Varmint
NES Member
Again, you are ignoring the Bill of Rights already exists, we aren't providing more power for anything.
Does the Constitution allow the federal government (not SCOTUS) to remove state laws?
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Again, you are ignoring the Bill of Rights already exists, we aren't providing more power for anything.
Li
Libertarians at least acknowledge Constitutional powers even if they hate some of the powers listed in it
I'm sorry, you say things aren't banned???
It mentions manufacturing, importation sale and possession, clearly part of commerce. and the PR on it mentions the 2nd I'm not seeing how you can't grasp that. Apart from an "all gov = evil" argument I don't see how this is a problem with congress' enumerated powers and much better than many uses of it in the past
Now you are talking in circles.
I simply want the bill of rights that are federally protected rights, out of the states hands.
If they can ban individuals from growing medicinal Marijuana for themselves alone even if legal under state laws via interstate commerce power then they can ban states from banning guns under it much more clearly and it needn't have anything to do with a RKBA argument, it is in their power.
Don’t need a bill then do we?
I think this is a fine example of Congressional over reach, but if its for a cause we support, it’s all good right?
Those are not Constitutionally protected.Suppose the Feds said states can’t ban abortion cause the federal law says it’s legal? Or heroin?
I still, and always will, believe that you can't take away any of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. They could be "stricken" from the constitution but that doesn't mean jack shit. They are God given (some may say "natural" rights bestowed on us at birth) and therefore rights that cannot be taken away, given away or sold (the meaning of the word unalienable).SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
If some don't like it, go get 3/4s of the States to vote to strike that from the Constitution.
We may find out someday, the Leftists want to get rid of the bill of rights.I still believe that you can't take away any of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. They could be "stricken" from the constitution but that doesn't mean jack shit. They are God given (some may say "natural" rights bestowed on us at birth) and therefore rights that cannot be taken away, given away or sold (the meaning of the word unalienable).
Regardless of anyone's position on abortion it is not protected in the constitution.The 9th is kind of open for interpretation
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
How do you feel about the rights of millions of women being taken away at the fed level and moved under "states rights" when the SC over turned RvW?
Can't have it both ways.
You are still talking in circles and frankly stating the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can alter the Constitution harmed your case greatly.They say a lot of conservatives are statists at heart. This thread proves it.
That’s literally one of the main purposes for having a federal government. In order for states to obtain state-hood they need to adopt and enforce the protections outlined by the constitution in the Bill of Rights.Yes, but when they fail to do that, I don’t think the federal government should have the power to come in and “fix things.”
When has the federal government used its additional powers for good things? Hardly ever.
This is the basis of all arguments.Those are not Constitutionally protected.
If not in the Constitution or BOR the States can manage within their borders as they see fit. Otherwise, no.
The Supreme Court is there for many things. One is to prevent rogue states from depriving it's citizens of their Constitutional Rights. If the Left wants trouble over it, so be it. They have no intention of stopping and no intention of relenting their attacks on our system that made us the greatest nation in the world. You can't run from Leftists, you can't move from Leftists, you must push back.This is the basis of all arguments.
The Supreme Court is there to argue the grey areas, they should be apolitical and should follow the Consititution and Bill of Rights. Everyone knows that is not the case.
They have not done satisfactory job according to Harry and others in addressing dumb laws in shithead states....in which Im in agreement with.
So now, those people want the feds to step in and strongarm states. This can create a Civil War situation or unrest or states leaving the Republic.
Id say for those that want that....maybe you should consider moving to a free state instead of giving the feds more power. Because it can go both ways.
However, this over time...if left undealt with, just adds to the rift between states and certain parts of the country, and will eventually cause some divide.
Reality is...the checks and balances aren't working fully, and some states are pushing and pushing and are happy filling up the courts with shit, so they can just let their anti constitutional shit run amok. If the people in those states leave, and give that said shithead state less representation, and stop funding their bullshit with your tax dollars. That is probably the only thing that sends a message.
Add to that you get immediate freedom.......
I do not understand what part of "firearms in common use" {cannot be banned}, as stated in the Heller decision, allows Massachusetts to continue using "rosters". By arbitrarily banning certain firearms that are "in common use" elsewhere in the country Massachusetts would appear to be violating the Heller decision.That would help with the ban on assault style firearms. It will not help on the evil use of the roster to restrict what MA licensed Dealers can sell and transfer. The state still has the roster as the point of control to stop you from getting what you want
I do not understand what part of "firearms in common use" {cannot be banned}, as stated in the Heller decision, allows Massachusetts to continue using "rosters". By arbitrarily banning certain firearms that are "in common use" elsewhere in the country Massachusetts would appear to be violating the Heller decision.
The legal theory of the state is that MA does not "ban" guns that are not on the roster and not readily available. They are legal to possess and use and there are ways for people to get them.I do not understand what part of "firearms in common use" {cannot be banned}, as stated in the Heller decision, allows Massachusetts to continue using "rosters". By arbitrarily banning certain firearms that are "in common use" elsewhere in the country Massachusetts would appear to be violating the Heller decision.
Overall...you are correct. And you think in my state where I live in we didn't push back? Solid Red...Trump victory. I voted...and won this time....for once. It felt FXCKING GOOD!The Supreme Court is there for many things. One is to prevent rogue states from depriving it's citizens of their Constitutional Rights. If the Left wants trouble over it, so be it. They have no intention of stopping and no intention of relenting their attacks on our system that made us the greatest nation in the world. You can't run from Leftists, you can't move from Leftists, you must push back.
My Town voted for Trump!!.........well, not that it matters at all.Overall...you are correct. And you think in my state where I live in we didn't push back? Solid Red...Trump victory. I voted...and won this time....for once. It felt FXCKING GOOD!
What about yours? Yeah...solid Blue....bunch of losers.
You can have Constitutional rights right now if you want..... You just have to move and go live with like minded people. In MA, overall, your living with retards that don't like you.
Im not suggesting that is right way of doing things to make absolute changes........but people will do things that are easier and more comfortable to obtain their rights thru osmosis and relocation.....its obviously happening and that's what people are doing...this idea is nothing new. The democracy and checks and balances are somewhat broken....so you have to do what you can do to live your life the way you want, or you suck it up and pay to get your rights taken away.
I have all the respect for you if you stay and fight....I'm not saying anything is wrong with it. Everyone has personal reasons for getting out of dodge or standing up and trying......Im just saying in you lifetime you may never see rights that I got reinstated immediately and instantly with just selling and moving. If your OK with that...then so be it. You can wait for the Supreme Court to fix MA.......and keep waiting and trying and not letting them move you out.........but don't bitch about it if your losing.
Voting there won't work....... there is ZERO accountability for the way they fxck with certain peoples rights. That's a guarantee I will make you that until the Dems totally fxck everything up beyond measure ........ will the retards that live in MA ever vote Red. Even then they are importing so many fake vote illegals, and there are shit ton of takers.......I still doubt it.
I waited for 50 plus years and tried to change it.....it always got worse. Once they started importing illegals and trying to make me pay for them, that was the last straw. Done waiting, done paying taxes to them to fxck me out of my rights. You can wait...great....but don't expect some sort of rescue package from the Feds. Not going to happen.....at least until the Supremes get their head out of their ass, and even then, expect 100% that MA will fully fxck with anything freedom that is obtained thru the court, then your back to square 1 rinse and repeat.
Your vote for president will never really matter in MA. And I say if it ever gets close will cheat if they don't already. The architecture is now in place for it with illegals and drivers licensure and vote harvesting.My Town voted for Trump!!.........well, not that it matters at all.
As you should, no matter where you live......and if you live in MA...unless your a democrat...expect that in statewide elections your Republican candidate will get about 35% of the vote and the Dem will win by a wide margin, and the state will never vote republican Republican for president.Yet, still I vote and always will.
I agree. Unfortunately it will likely take some type of Cali-level catastrophic event or a blatant f*** up that outrages the inner 128-band before anything significant will change.As you should, no matter where you live......and if you live in MA...unless your a democrat...expect that in statewide elections your Republican candidate will get about 35% of the vote and the Dem will win by a wide margin, and the state will never vote republican Republican for president.
Unless they roll in a RINO for Gov, like Baker or Romney every 8 years or so. Just so they can call stuff Bipartisan. But they are just figureheads to place blame on if things go awry, the House, Senate, AG...all will be democrats and they control what really goes on.
Last 38 years of my voting life in MA....nothing really ever changed. Except gun rights, freedom got more infringed upon every decade or so.
Local elections...especially in Central MA....Red does win and most of my reps were R.