[danf_fl]

Some states are trying to cite the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights pertaining to firearms manufacturered in their states.
They are basically saying that firearms made in their state and sold in their state to their citizens will not fall under the realm of the Federal government or the Federal government regulations.

http://www.gunlaws.com/MontanaMadeGuns.htm

This is being played out in courts now.

How this will affect Mary Jane? Pretty much the same (IMO).

[luckyj]

Originally Posted by Chainfire

States rights ended with the surrender at Appomattox.

If the Federal government wishes to enforce any law, they have the resources to handle it. A lot of conservative gun owners like to brag that "we have the guns". By that same standard, the big guns belong to the Army and the Government that issues their orders. When the tiger is tired of getting it's chains rattled, it can become nasty. Ask the ghosts of Waco.

As long as the government controls air power, tanks, APCs, artillery, drones, battleships and silly stuff like that, they can make the decisions as to what laws they want to enforce and who they wish to enforce it on. Those old boys can take you out in your mountain bunker hide-out from the airconditioned comfort of a drone driver's computer from 10,000 miles away.

That is exactly why politics are a hell of a sight better way to solve our issues with the government than threats.

I don't always agree with some of your views but this I do agree with.

The question is, how do we accomplish that now? It seems as though the scales are at a tipping point where the "entitlement crowd" are seemingly outnumbering the "work my ass off to support my family crowd".

The obvious answer is taking the initiative to educate those with the entitlement mentality but with the current state of our government, they certainly are not going to take on that task.

[scottybaccus]

What's really happening right now is various states are lining up the Constitutional challenges to any potential Federal legislation. Whatever happens will depend on rulings of the Constitutionality of any new law against the 2nd Ammendment, however failing that, a whole slew of challenges could be mounted under State's Rights. The Fed's DON'T have the resources for enforcement without States cooperating because they can't employ the military in domestic police matters.
Now on the sunny side, the rabid bans being put into play by California, Connecticut and New York will set the stage for multiple Constitutional challenges, concurrently and in short order. Those outcomes will draw out federal action on anything that Congress or Obama are able to squeak out this month. Hopefully, the politicos will get bored and move on before anything meaningful can hurt us.
About the "cold dead hands", it won't come to a stand-off over seizure or surrender as long as there is respect for the courts. The day that the courts are set aside by any member of the government, we will have a revolution on our hands.
In the remote chance that a wide ban or surrender order should happen, we need to mount a wide, and I mean WIDE, scale surrender of our persons, overwhelming any ability of enforcement agencies to handle us all. Not a shot need be fired, and they will be counting dockets instead of ballots. Just hold out your hands and tell them you will not comply, then go quietly. Leave no evidence behind to aid your prosecution, but tie up the court's resources. they WILL cry uncle.
Keep this in mind, too. NRA campaign contributions to the last election cycle total several million dollars, with 382 representatives scoring an A on the NRAs report card. Contributions from gun control groups? About $4000. What do you think the House of Representatives will do, even IF the Senate advances a bill?

I expect Obama to opt for Executive order, so that he gets credit even if the courts shoot him down (was that a pun?). In that order he will institute a federal, uniform background check on all firearms transfers. It may be driven by a registration mandate (which none of us should comply with), and it will encompass all gunshow sales, probably hamper mail order, and it will kill classifieds sales by individuals. He will certainly opt for magazine limitations, but it will be sticky if he goes any further than new manufacture. Trying to ban those already in circulation could create millions of felons overnight. Get ready to march on Washington. Then he will deflect a lot of the attention to committees on mental health and the role of the entertainment and video game industries. Those will be hampered by the 1st Ammendment, so only policy and guidelines will result.
Feinsteins bill was DOA and she was too stupid to know it.

[Chainfire]

Originally Posted by scottybaccus

What's really happening right now is various states are lining up the Constitutional challenges to any potential Federal legislation. Whatever happens will depend on rulings of the Constitutionality of any new law against the 2nd Ammendment, however failing that, a whole slew of challenges could be mounted under State's Rights. The Fed's DON'T have the resources for enforcement without States cooperating because they can't employ the military in domestic police matters.
Now on the sunny side, the rabid bans being put into play by California, Connecticut and New York will set the stage for multiple Constitutional challenges, concurrently and in short order. Those outcomes will draw out federal action on anything that Congress or Obama are able to squeak out this month. Hopefully, the politicos will get bored and move on before anything meaningful can hurt us.
About the "cold dead hands", it won't come to a stand-off over seizure or surrender as long as there is respect for the courts. The day that the courts are set aside by any member of the government, we will have a revolution on our hands.
In the remote chance that a wide ban or surrender order should happen, we need to mount a wide, and I mean WIDE, scale surrender of our persons, overwhelming any ability of enforcement agencies to handle us all. Not a shot need be fired, and they will be counting dockets instead of ballots. Just hold out your hands and tell them you will not comply, then go quietly. Leave no evidence behind to aid your prosecution, but tie up the court's resources. they WILL cry uncle.
Keep this in mind, too. NRA campaign contributions to the last election cycle total several million dollars, with 382 representatives scoring an A on the NRAs report card. Contributions from gun control groups? About $4000. What do you think the House of Representatives will do, even IF the Senate advances a bill?

I expect Obama to opt for Executive order, so that he gets credit even if the courts shoot him down (was that a pun?). In that order he will institute a federal, uniform background check on all firearms transfers. It may be driven by a registration mandate (which none of us should comply with), and it will encompass all gunshow sales, probably hamper mail order, and it will kill classifieds sales by individuals. He will certainly opt for magazine limitations, but it will be sticky if he goes any further than new manufacture. Trying to ban those already in circulation could create millions of felons overnight. Get ready to march on Washington. Then he will deflect a lot of the attention to committees on mental health and the role of the entertainment and video game industries. Those will be hampered by the 1st Ammendment, so only policy and guidelines will result.
Feinsteins bill was DOA and she was too stupid to know it.

Diane's proposal is not stupid. When you go into a negoiation, you begin asking for the world, you never start with the minimum you expect to get.

You seem comfortable that any gun control legislation will be challenged in court. I agree with that. You also seem to think that, when it gets to the Supreme court that the legislation will be found to be unconstitutional; that is not a given. It is quite possible that a new interpretation of "gun rights" may be established.

Whatever laws are enacted, the vast majority of Americans will follow the law. Those who don't will be outlaws. We have always had outlaws, and always will, but they are a minority of the population.

[John_Deer]

Originally Posted by Chainfire

States rights ended with the surrender at Appomattox.

If the Federal government wishes to enforce any law, they have the resources to handle it. A lot of conservative gun owners like to brag that "we have the guns". By that same standard, the big guns belong to the Army and the Government that issues their orders. When the tiger is tired of getting it's chains rattled, it can become nasty. Ask the ghosts of Waco.

As long as the government controls air power, tanks, APCs, artillery, drones, battleships and silly stuff like that, they can make the decisions as to what laws they want to enforce and who they wish to enforce it on. Those old boys can take you out in your mountain bunker hide-out from the airconditioned comfort of a drone driver's computer from 10,000 miles away. If our military has to fire on American citizens there will be no burning desire to succeed.

That is exactly why politics are a hell of a sight better way to solve our issues with the government than threats.

Our sporting weapons are scary to the federal government. The people of Afghanistan are illiterate and only had rocks when Russia invaded. They held off the Russians for 20 years. Now they are giving our troops a good fight. Heavy artillery has to be manned by soldiers with a burning desire to win for it to be effective. Some military units will defect with all of their equipment. If our military has to fire on US citizens there will be no burning desire to succeed.

[texaswoodworker]

Originally Posted by Chainfire

As long as the government controls air power, tanks, APCs, artillery, drones, battleships and silly stuff like that, they can make the decisions as to what laws they want to enforce and who they wish to enforce it on.

Last I checked, the States had that too. Why don't you ask the Texas National Guard?









We also have a few units that have several M1A1 Abrams.

Would the Texas National Guard defeat the US military alone? Probably not. Would they serve as a huge deterrent or really cause some damage the the US military? Yes they would.

If we're talking about armed conflict between the feds and the states, it's only fair to include the people who would join the state military to fight off the feds. It's also only fair to include other states that may decide they are tired of the feds too, and join the fight.

Just FYI, We also have a HUGE amount of gun owners that would defend their this state. Overall, we have around 8,733,000 gun owners in Texas. Many on us would fight for this state. The US military is way outnumbered by Texas gun owners.

It's in the fed's best interest not to mess with Texas, or really any other state for that matter.

If there is a war within America, it is more likely that it will be the People against the Government. Not the feds against the states.

[1911love]

Chain- Yes, we will always have outlaws. Right not they are the minority. If any of these illegal laws pass, outlaws wouldn't be a small minority anymore. Millions of outlaws would be "created" with the swipe of a pen. Every American should be concerned about this, especially the govt.