Topic: Way to go Governor!
Sojourning_Soul's photo
Mon 03/24/14 01:58 PM
Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Mon 03/24/14 01:59 PM

BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

BOISE, March 21, 2014 - On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.

S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.

http://benswann.com/breaking-idaho-governor-signs-emergency-legislation-nullifying-all-future-federal-gun-laws/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl

no photo
Mon 03/24/14 03:05 PM
Edited by alnewman on Mon 03/24/14 03:07 PM


BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

BOISE, March 21, 2014 - On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.

S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.

http://benswann.com/breaking-idaho-governor-signs-emergency-legislation-nullifying-all-future-federal-gun-laws/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=nl


But did you read the Supreme Court decision in the article, Printz v. United States, 521 US 898 - Supreme Court 1997. In Justice Thomas concurring, he bought up a very interesting point, just waiting to be answered:


Even if we construe Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce to encompass those intrastate transactions that "substantially affect" interstate commerce, I question whether Congress can regulate the particular transactions at issue here. The Constitution, in addition to delegating certain enumerated powers to Congress, places whole areas outside the reach of Congress' regulatory authority. The First Amendment, for example, is fittingly celebrated for preventing Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion or "abridging the freedom of speech." The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the Government's authority. That Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." 3 J. Story, Commentaries � 1890, p. 746 (1833). In the meantime, I join the Court's opinion striking down the challenged provisions of the Brady Act as inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.


And here is a very pointed challenge issued in June of 1997 and still it has not raised to the Supreme Court, why not?