Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Legislator Starts Bill To Limit State Gun Control Laws

NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior MemberPosts: 4,324 Senior Member
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/31/gop-rep-introduces-legislation-to-nullify-state-level-gun-controls/

Not sure how I take this yet but it appears a NY Republican Representative wants to have legislation to keep state laws like NY SAFE Act from cutting gun owners rights ...
WKBW reports Collins’ bill is titled the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), and its language explicitly “[limits] the authority of states to regulate conduct, or impose penalties or taxes in relation to rifles or shotguns.” It is designed to catch laws that go beyond federal statutes and render them void.

According to the Buffalo News, Collins described SAGA, saying, “This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo. I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.”
“The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
- George Orwell

Replies

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,683 Senior Member
    Its about bloody time! Stuff *THIS* up your posterior, Moonbeam!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • AxeAxe Member Posts: 421 Member
    Being that firearms are federally regulated, I would say its about damn time they mind their own business.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,403 Senior Member
    Could do some good, and it could be a herd of camel noses under the tent. But then, I'm a States Rights 10th Amendment kind of guy. And if the people of a state wish to be treated like chattel property by the state and let it happen without pitching a hissy conniption fit and bringing out the tar and feathers, then that's how the cookie crumbles.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,713 Senior Member
    So you want to do away with states rights. What happens next election when someone like hillary gets elected? States rights and all.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,267 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    So you want to do away with states rights. What happens next election when someone like hillary gets elected? States rights and all.

    Futzing with the 2A is NOT a state's rights issue! This falls under all that "inalienable human rights" topic. The BOR is one of the things the states don't get to tinker with, short of successfully pulling off an Article V, 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress. So no, other than their votes in the House and Senate regarding NATIONAL laws, the states shouldn't have a say in this.

    Do any of your OTHER Constitutional freedoms change drastically when you cross state lines?:bang:
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • pjames777pjames777 Senior Member Posts: 1,421 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I feel like Bigslug does too on this issue. Some things have to be dealt with across the board, such as constitutional or BOR violations. In New York today, you can become a felon traveling from Tarrytown into New York City with a CW if you have a NYS license. One county issues unrestricted CC Licenses and others refuse to issue anything but "target shooting and range" licenses if any. Some states have proven their inability to manage themselves on this topic.



    Like Kommifornia!
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    When a State tries to infringe on individual rights, and the Feds oppose it, I'm with the Feds and to hell with States' righs. When the Feds try to infringe on individual rights, and the States oppose it, I'm with the States. It's always on a case-by-case basis.

    Gun control, abortion, illegal immigration, voting laws, right-to-work, marriage equality, transgender issues, educational curriculums, and recreational/medical marijuana are just some of the issues where the Feds and the States are often on opposite sides - taking turns infringing or expanding individual rights. Nine times out of ten, I'm on the side of Liberty, and whichever level of government agrees with me.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,403 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Futzing with the 2A is NOT a state's rights issue! This falls under all that "inalienable human rights" topic. The BOR is one of the things the states don't get to tinker with, short of successfully pulling off an Article V, 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress. So no, other than their votes in the House and Senate regarding NATIONAL laws, the states shouldn't have a say in this.

    Do any of your OTHER Constitutional freedoms change drastically when you cross state lines?:bang:

    Lots of Professional Licenses don't transfer across state lines. Not really a right, but it's there. No money in it for the Feds, so they let that stand. 4th Amendment right comes to mind, too. Different from state to state in how they honor, or dishonor, that right. 6th and 7th Amendments also aren't exactly honored the same state to state as to speedy trial (6th). And the government itself violates the 7th when it's convenient. 8th prohibiting excessive bail is regularly violated by states to keep non violent offenders from being able to post bail; a lot of them don't have two pennies to rub together.

    That's my opinion for what it is worth, which ain't much.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,267 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    And if the people of a state wish to be treated like chattel property by the state and let it happen without pitching a hissy conniption fit and bringing out the tar and feathers, then that's how the cookie crumbles.

    Not quite so simple when you have Cook County (Chicago) being essentially an entirely different planet politically from the rest of Illinois. Same situation in California with the L.A. and S.F. areas. Same situation when comparing N.Y.C. to the rest of the state.

    Patchwork laws across the nation are fine for the most part - if someone wants to marry a goat and manages to set up enough votes to have the union recognized by local law - whatever. Doesn't bother anyone but meddling A-holes and comes down to their personal pursuit of happiness. Curtailing the fundamental freedoms on which the nation was founded, however, ESPECIALLY one laid down with the words "shall not be infringed" needs a severe dialing back. As I read it, the FEDS should have zero say in the matter of gun control, EXCEPT to smack down the states that try to bring it into play.

    IOW, get us back to the common sense method of punishing ACTS, not ITEMS.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,403 Senior Member
    No argument with your post #11. If something is done then it should apply to BOTH states and the fed. They have both been equal opportunity offenders when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,267 Senior Member
    Yep, but there is some advantage to keeping the keys to the gun control filing cabinet in the hands of the Feds - at least you need a NATIONAL majority in both houses, and that ship does not appear to be leaving drydock again anytime soon.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    People can always vote with their feet- - - -leave the female orfices who choose to subject themselves to draconian gun laws or other violations of their rights to their own devices and move to a place where freedom still exists. The folks who claim "I can't move!" just haven't had enough incentive to do so yet, or they don't value their rights and freedoms as much as they claim they do.
    Jerry
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    The United States of America, as the name clearly states, was always intended to be a union of sovereign states that could stand up to powerful foreign states, militarily and economically...at least that was so until one particular faction decided that it meant something else, and that it was worth having a war over.

    The amendment process, had it been used as designed, would have resolved those issues, without war. The fact that that did not happen was a resolution, itself, because it indicated that there was not a majority that wanted to change the status quo. The disagreements had raged over several decades, without the balance shifting enough to make passage of an amendment possible. Clearer heads did not prevail, compromise was not found, and the winners of the Civil War used their victory to impose their wills upon the losers, by force. Since that time, constitutionalists have been painted as a radical minority and the schools our children attend don't dwell for long on the Constitution.

    Most federal laws have been created to circumvent the Constitutional requirements, and this new one is no different.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement