Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

GUN CONTROL

Red States Plan to Make New Gun Laws Illegal

Texas, Tennessee, and Wyoming plot to arrest feds enforcing new laws

Next>

by Mary Noble

Senior Editor t

Image: Politix

Three different red state legislators have proposed laws that would make it illegal for federal agents to enforce new gun laws: State Rep. Joe Carr of Tennessee, Wyoming state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, and Texas state Rep. Steve Toth. Enforcing new federal gun laws would become a misdemeanor in Tennessee, but a state felony in Wyoming and Texas.

Carr said he introduced the bill to allow Tennessee residents to "defend themselves from tyranny."

Could these state laws take effect, if passed? It's debatable, since the constitution doesn't allow state law to supersede federal law, according to Stanford law prof and former Supreme Court clerk Jeffrey Fisher.

Meanwhile local law enforcers are getting in on the act: in Oregon and Kentucky, sheriffs have promised not to enforce new gun laws passed after Sandy Hook.

But many other state officials have endorsed Obama's plans, including a group of 70 mayors who are lobbying Congress to ban assault weapons. At least one of those mayors is a Republican, Huffpo reports.

Via the Huffington Post and KLTV.
Like this article? B Vote Up

Comments (view in Forum)

  • stepped_in_it
    !
    What NEW gun laws.....oh, you mean those 23 presidential memos requesting congress to enact legislation.....those NEW laws?? They ain't laws dumdum's, they are (in the real world) work instructions.....and like most employees, the congress will just ignore them and scream like little girls!!
  • o
    woodtick57
    !
    Seems some states need smarter law enforcement officials... kinda scary to think that people who don't evenb understand the issues are in control of our law enforcement...
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    @woodtick57 Understand the issues or not. Did you read any "laws" in those 23 memos? I only read "work instructions" or requests or affirmative directions. Maybe I read wrong?
  • John_Matrix
    !
    @woodtick57

    Those law enforcement people are enforcing the will of the people in their state. Not everybody is so willing to roll over and to submit to a bunch of federal bullshit.
  • o
    woodtick57
    !
    @Republican5001

    See, you're really bad at making assumptions, you should stop doing it...

    i have no team. i was merely pointing out that these LEO' don't undersdtand the issue, as steppedinit pointed out. seems you don't understand them either...
    which team is yours?, just for future reference of those that don't know the issues...)

  • View all 64 replies >

  • aturner1971
    !
    Its about time persons in high ranking state and federal offices stood up for the rights of the people. The sad thing here is it is such a small numberand my state is still not on board.
  • Rocker
    !
    I may be taking an entirely different tack on this but it is my belief that there are 2 different issues in this one struggling to get out. One is the Constitutional Amendment which should remain intact. The other is <cringe> States Rights.
    To my thinking, it should be up to a state or local jurisdiction to make and enforce their own laws regarding regulation of firearms according to the populace and circumstances. A smaller rural town/county/state would have different policies than, for example, a larger urban city such as Chicago with numerous gangs or criminal elements resident. I'd be interested to hear you folks take on that one.
    Incidentally, the concept would also apply to 'gay marriage', abortion, medical pot (already). etc...
  • kathyparsell
    !
    It is interesting, and also frightening. I think the issue of the 2nd ammendment has already been settled, although clips and background checks, I feel, wouldnt be found an infringement. I think that the states want and probably need clarification on their rights in this regard. My other thought is it needs to happen with the current supreme court or there may be trouble. A growing pain or a mortal wound?
  • Quantummist
    !
    The Intent of the 2nd amendment was to limit the Federal Government from controlling the ability of the States to form a militia and have a well armed State Population that had been Well Trained (Well Regulated) at the call of the State when required. The Only power given the Federal Government was the ability to control Interstate transfer of arms as a form of commerce.. It by intent gives the Federal Government No authority to make any laws what so ever concerning firearms within each state.

    Now within the States they can pass any laws they wish concerning firearms. A State can Ban all firearms completely if the People so choose... The States can amend their state constitutions to make it Unconstitutional for that states citizens to possess any firearms or if the State Constitution does not protect such rights local jurisdictions such as cities or counties can pass local laws to do so...

    If we followed the Intent of the Constitution a State could allow the Manufacture and Sales of Fully Automatic firearms within the states and the sales, possession within the state and the Federal Government has no authority to limit such manufacture and sales Within the State.....

    This Intent was to allow the People the ability to control the laws within the state and gave the People the Ability to settle in a state with a law base that fits their individual lifestyle choice... If a Individual wanted to be with others that do not like guns in the public they could move to a state that limited such possession... It allowed for experimentation within states to form a government that works for that state.. If that states laws are found lacking then the People could leave, If a states laws were found exceptable then their populations would grow... It gave The People Freedom of Choice....
  • u
    mynameisaric
    !
    @Quantummist while I appreciate your interpretation of the intent of the second amendment, I have to disagree in what it actually means. The intent holds less merit than the actual wording. And in the wording, there is nothing that would allow the states or the federal government to neuter standardmagazine sizes or ban rifles based on the way they look or function. In my opinion, for a ban of the magnitude they are talking about to be constitutional, I believe they need to write an amendment to amend or repeal the second amendment. This would be a much harder task, so they put out all this bs about the "intent" of the bill of rights. All partys have trampled on the bill of rights, it has just been getting worse in the past 15-20 years. So I'm not blaming liberals or conservatives, they're all to blame. Our government is being sold to the highest bidder every 2 years in November.
  • Quantummist
    !
    @mynameisaric ... I'm going by the Actual wording of the Constitution and the Actual Verbiage use at the time of it's inception... The Intent of the Constitution when written and ratified was as a limit on Federal Governmental Powers and to designate what power was given to the federal government by the states specifically. It gave all power not specifically delegated to the federal government to the individual states.

    There are many, many documents that speak of this and the debates on the authority given to the federal government and what power was retained by the state.. The State individually has it's own Constitution which governs it's authority. There is No controlling wording in the Federal Constitution that limits the ability of a State to make laws regarding how the people of the state choose to make law.

    What I think to many people do is think the Constitution was written to limit the People ... It was Not... I was written to Limit Only the Federal Government... This was one of the Big argument had about it in the first place... Some wanted a National Government instead of a Federal Government... During the debates the Federalist Won... But the Nationalist have never given up and they have perverted the language of the constitution to change the US into a National Government without using the only method allowed by the Constitution, Amendment and Ratification.. The Ability of the Federal Government to legislate the laws within a state is a Nationalistic extra constitutional perversion of the intent of the Constitution....

    But the States own individual Constitutions are the controlling documents regarding what laws can be passed and enforced within the states...

    "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."

    The term Well Regulated has nothing to do with Regulating via Laws... And the amendment points to a Free State showing the states are Free to make State Laws as their people feel needed.. And the Shall Not Be Infringed is Specific to the Federal Government Only not having the authority to limit the states or the people in them in any way....

    "Well Regulated" : http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
  • u
    mynameisaric
    !
    @Quantummist I absolutely agree that the constitution limits the government and not the people. I'm also aware of the tenth amendment. I understand what you're saying. Absolutely makes sense. Irritates methat my state can do what it does, but you're right that it's a state issue. Thank you for the clarification.

  • View all 11 replies >

  • frigginhell
    !
    Keep electing Bachman and it's going to be that way on the respect front. Supreme Court > state law. FYI, the south lost the last time. The south would lose again if it came to it. You live in the most economically repressed area in the country that feels entitled to federal dollars to keep you going and then whine that about what you have to give when it's less than you take.
    If the south secedes how are they going to fund, well, anything?
  • u
    Cheenoguy
    !
    Remember when grown ups used to run things. If a state thought a law unconstitutional the attorney general would sue the Feds on that basis and we would let Supreme Court decide what is constitutional? These states no full well that every single recommendation that Obama made for congress and everyone one of the overhyped executive orders are 100% constitutional and that they will lose in court. This is nothing but BS posturing to win approval for their base and give a pointless finger to President Blackenstein.
  • Post Removed by Moderators
  •
    johnsanchez
    !
    Article VI, clause 2, "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    This is called the supremacy clause, and it still means what it did in the 1850's, which is that TEA Partiers are required to follow the nation's laws, even if they can't read or understand the Constitution.
  • johnsanchez
    !
    @Knightmare There is no liberal war on religion, or freedom of religion, there is only an assertion of freedom of religion in that Dominionist Christians are being resisted when they are groping for governmental power. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, and right wingers are disparaging non Christian religion, especially Islam, then that isn't a war on religion, although it certainly carries all of the earmarks of a war on religion.

  • View all 6 replies >

  • u
    Cheenoguy
    !
    I am appalled at a thought that just entered my mind. I realized I miss the good ole GOP when they weren't quite so crazy. W seems like a decent bloke compared to these people. HW and Reagan are liberal by comparison.
  • Real4WheelDrv
    !
    I was thinking similar thoughts about Clinton and Carter compared to our current President. I honestly don't think we'll have any unity in this country without a major event by an external force, not a terrorist attack, because we'll be united for a few months and then start pointing fingers, but a declaration of war by an aggressor nation, or if you'll forgive my imagination, finding out aliens exist or being attacked by said aliens. Civil discussion is no longer possible, at least long enough to accomplish anything.
  • u
    Mytwocents007
    !
    Not being an American or a Gun owner my view is a little different than most of yours - i understand your 'right to bear arms ' but should you really have the right to have so many guns -just how many guns does one man or one family need ??? My country gets on just fine ,our police do not carry guns on their person and handguns (other than for collectors) are illegal.Someone told me guns dont kill people -people kill people -i think people with guns kill people .
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    It isn't about need. I don't need a 10,000 square foot house, but if I want it I have the right to build it. I don't need a 500 Horsepower truck, but again I have the right to own one if I choose.

    As for people with guns killing people. People with intent kill people. Guns or not, you can't change that. Freedom is messy and difficult and I love it.
  • Real4WheelDrv
    !
    and it's not necessarily the amount either, but the restrictions on type and general singling out as a "gun nut" for wanting to own something for protection, and something for hunting etc. Generally, crimes involving a gun are committed with handguns because they are easy to use, easy to carry, and common. People are focused on the big scary long guns because they are...well...big and scary. But many of those weapons do not fit the most widely accepted definition of "assault weapon" which is what the recent fervor is being centered around.
  • Real4WheelDrv
    !
    Honestly, if sandy hook had happened with a guy carrying twin nine millimeters, it would have been just as traumatic and even more "hollywood".
  • PayThatCEO
    !
    Americans are self-centered to the core, have no concept of society or community, and live individualistic ideals. We weren't always like this. There used to be a time when we cared about our nation as a whole and we considered ourselves a society, but something happened on the way to paradise and now we're a floundering group of egomaniacs who can't even agree that the sky is blue.
  • PayThatCEO
    !
    @Thunderchicken

    Freedom is also a lie. It's full of rules and laws and boundaries because from the very first inkling of society people have learned that people can't be trusted. People lie, cheat, steal, harm others, and are irresponsible. If everyone did the right thing, we wouldn't need to be controlled by laws...THEN we would have freedom.

    I use the example of texting and driving laws. Stupidest thing I've ever heard of. Anyone with a brain knows you can't type and drive safely, but because some irresponsible fools took their eyes off the road to read a text message and killed someone, we now have to have a law.

    Same with drunk driving. Tough rules didn't come about until drunks killing people on the road became epidemic. Hence, we now have laws.

    Guns are the same way. If everyone was responsible with a gun, we wouldn't need laws. But we seem to be a country filled to capacity with the irresponsible. It is THOSE idiots who make things bad for everyone else.

    Guns are like cars. There are people who are very responsible drivers. Then there are those who THINK they are. You can't tell the difference until a tragedy occurs. How do you go about MAKING people responsible? So far the only thing we've ever known to do is make more laws.

  • View all 12 replies >

  • marine1
    !
    Might be time to bring back the maso/dixon line, progressives on one side,conservatives on the other. Check in time 10 years later to see who is still putting food on the table and paying their bills.
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    well i think they have us...instead us gun control,lets go after the mental cases,which by their definition includes,God fearing,rifle totin,hillbillies..also they are especially after the veterans,???there is a big push to get veterans to come forward with post traumatic stress syndrome,if you do that well up your benefits etc,,,guess what you have just become mentally unfit to own a firearm,..don't forget those wack jobs that support the constitution.or Christians,right to life,anti-gay,yep those and more are cast as wack jobs,look at the posts on here... yep they have morons believing that we need more and new taxes,and now we will beg them to take our 2nd amendment freedoms thru mental health issues....how long before you are deemed a threat????!!!
  • USCG
    !
    900 deaths in the last 30 days from guns, 2900 deaths from car wrecks whats going to be the next ban? Better go get a bike before that go out of sight in price. They can have my gun when they pull it from my dead body.
  • R Load more comments...