Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
isaiah40
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:14 pm

Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by isaiah40 »

Well Washington is at it again! This time considering to nullify federal gun laws in regards to INTRASTATE commerce.

Here's the bill in full:

H-3507.2 _____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 2709
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 61st Legislature 2010 Regular Session
By Representatives Shea, Ross, Kristiansen, Haler, Klippert, Taylor,
McCune, Short, Hinkle, Crouse, Dammeier, Parker, Johnson, Angel,
Bailey, Orcutt, Roach, Schmick, Fagan, Condotta, Pearson, Warnick, and
Kretz
Read first time 01/12/10. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
1 AN ACT Relating to adopting the Washington state firearms freedom
2 act of 2010 and exempting a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition
3 manufactured and retained in Washington from federal regulation under
4 the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States; and
5 adding a new chapter to Title 19 RCW.
6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. This act may be known and cited as the
8 Washington state firearms freedom act of 2010.
9 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. The legislature declares that the authority
10 for this act is the following:
11 (1) The tenth amendment to the United States Constitution
12 guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the
13 federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the
14 state and people of Washington certain powers as they were understood
15 at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in 1889. The
16 guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and
17 people of Washington and the United States as of the time that the
p. 1 HB 2709
1 compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
2 Washington and the United States in 1889.
3 (2) The ninth amendment to the United States Constitution
4 guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution and
5 reserves to the people of Washington certain rights as they were
6 understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
7 1889. The guaranty of those rights is a matter of contract between the
8 state and people of Washington and the United States as of the time
9 that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
10 Washington and the United States in 1889.
11 (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states
12 under the ninth and tenth amendments to the United States Constitution.
13 (4) The second amendment to the United States Constitution reserves
14 to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was
15 understood at the time that Washington was admitted to statehood in
16 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the
17 state and people of Washington and the United States as of the time
18 that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by
19 Washington and the United States in 1889.
20 (5) Article I, section 24 of the Washington state Constitution
21 clearly secures to Washington citizens, and prohibits government
22 interference with, the right of individual Washington citizens to keep
23 and bear arms. This constitutional protection is unchanged from the
24 1889 Washington state Constitution, which was approved by congress and
25 the people of Washington, and the right exists as it was understood at
26 the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and
27 adopted by Washington and the United States in 1889.
28 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. The definitions in this section apply
29 throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
30 (1) "Borders of Washington" means the boundaries of Washington.
31 (2) "Firearms accessories" means items that are used in conjunction
32 with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic
33 function of a firearm including, but not limited to, telescopic or
34 laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or
35 aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and
36 lights for target illumination.
HB 2709 p. 2
1 (3) "Generic and insignificant parts" includes, but is not limited
2 to, springs, screws, nuts, and pins.
3 (4) "Manufactured" means that a firearm, a firearm accessory, or
4 ammunition has been created from basic materials for functional
5 usefulness including, but not limited to, forging, casting, machining,
6 or other processes for working materials.
7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. (1) A personal firearm, a firearm accessory,
8 or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in
9 Washington and that remains within the borders of Washington is not
10 subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration,
11 under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is
12 declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in
13 interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm
14 accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Washington from basic
15 materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any
16 significant parts imported from another state. Generic and
17 insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product
18 applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and
19 their importation into Washington and incorporation into a firearm, a
20 firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Washington does not
21 subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal
22 regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials,
23 such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms
24 accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional
25 authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition
26 under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms
27 accessories, or ammunition. The authority of congress to regulate
28 interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to
29 regulate firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in
30 Washington from those materials. Firearms accessories that are
31 imported into Washington from another state and that are subject to
32 federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a
33 firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they
34 are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Washington.
35 (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to:
36 (a) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;
p. 3 HB 2709
1 (b) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one-
2 half inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a
3 propellant;
4 (c) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion
5 of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or
6 (d) A firearm, other than a shotgun, that discharges two or more
7 projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
8 NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A firearm manufactured or sold in Washington
9 under this chapter must have the words made in Washington clearly
10 stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.
11 NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. Any federal law, rule, order, or other act
12 by the federal government violating the provisions of this act is
13 hereby declared to be invalid in this state, is not recognized by and
14 is specifically rejected by this state, and is considered as null and
15 void and of no effect in this state.
16 NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. If any provision of this act or its
17 application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
18 remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other
19 persons or circumstances is not affected.
20 NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. This act applies to firearms, firearms
21 accessories, and ammunition that are manufactured and retained in
22 Washington after October 1, 2010.
23 NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. Sections 1 through 8 of this act constitute
24 a new chapter in Title 19 RCW.
--- END ---
HB 2709 p. 4
Borderdawg
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 7:31 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Borderdawg »

=D> Good for the state of Washington!
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Titanic »

Good job, hope others follow with this lead.
isaiah40
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by isaiah40 »

Titanic wrote:Good job, hope others follow with this lead.


Montana and Tennessee already have laws in force. Ohio is considering it, Missouri, Michigan (if I remember correctly).
Here's where you can find out what states are considering it!
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Titanic »

Wait, what does this law actually do? Stop any federal control of guns made and bought within state boundaries?
isaiah40
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by isaiah40 »

Titanic wrote:Wait, what does this law actually do? Stop any federal control of guns made and bought within state boundaries?


Yes, any guns, ammunition etc. made, sold and to remain within state boundaries are exempt from federal control.
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Titanic »

isaiah40 wrote:
Titanic wrote:Wait, what does this law actually do? Stop any federal control of guns made and bought within state boundaries?


Yes, any guns, ammunition etc. made, sold and to remain within state boundaries are exempt from federal control.


Oh, now that I've read it and understood it properly I'm totally against it. I'm for gun control.
Borderdawg
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 7:31 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Borderdawg »

Titanic wrote:
isaiah40 wrote:
Titanic wrote:Wait, what does this law actually do? Stop any federal control of guns made and bought within state boundaries?


Yes, any guns, ammunition etc. made, sold and to remain within state boundaries are exempt from federal control.


Oh, now that I've read it and understood it properly I'm totally against it. I'm for gun control.


So was king georgie iii! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Pedronicus
Posts: 2080
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:42 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Busy not shitting you....

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Pedronicus »

Ignore this gun shit and focus your minds on the real problem.
Goldman Sachs and the rest of the bankers.

you have guns.

put them in your clothes and go to where the bankers are. then shoot the cunts that are currently laughing at you.

untill you reclaim your money from the robber barons - your freedoms ain't worth a wet wank
Image
Highest position 7th. Highest points 3311 All of my graffiti can be found here
GloryOfThe80s
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by GloryOfThe80s »

I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states that everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Titanic »

GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states that everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?


In ALL other western nations, by a long way. I think the amount of gun death in the UK last year was around 40 out of a total homocide rate of 1000 people (if I am remembering the figures right, I'll try get a link if I have time).

Dusn the USA have around 15,000 homicides a year, with a huge amount (comparitively) coming from gun crime?
User avatar
Skittles!
Posts: 14575
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2007 2:18 am
Gender: Male

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Skittles! »

GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states that everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

BUT IT'S THE CONSTITUTION! YOU CAN'T AMEND THAT WHEN IT COMES TO GUN LAWS.
KraphtOne wrote:when you sign up a new account one of the check boxes should be "do you want to foe colton24 (it is highly recommended) "
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Frigidus »

Skittles! wrote:
GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states that everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

BUT IT'S THE CONSTITUTION! YOU CAN'T AMEND THAT WHEN IT COMES TO GUN LAWS.

It's a cultural thing. We're taught from an early age that amending the Bill of Rights would be equivalent to putting in place the system from 1984.
isaiah40
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by isaiah40 »

This isn't gun control, this is the state telling the federal government that those guns made in the state, sold in the state, and remain in the state are exempt from federal control because the manufacturing, selling and using within the states boundaries DO NOT fall under the INTERSTATE commerce clause of federal law.

When you manufacture, sell and use within the states boundaries it is called INTRASTATE commerce, meaning commerce within the state and not crossing state lines. That is what this is all about, the right of the states to govern everything WITHIN their respective borders. In just about any other country the federal government controls everything.
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Titanic »

Frigidus wrote:It's a cultural thing. We're taught from an early age that amending the Bill of Rights would be equivalent to putting in place the system from 1984.


Well thats idiotic then because you have to continually change and adapt to the world around you. Sticking with "ideals" from the 18th century proves nothing and holds back development and in this case, costs lives.
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Frigidus »

Titanic wrote:
Frigidus wrote:It's a cultural thing. We're taught from an early age that amending the Bill of Rights would be equivalent to putting in place the system from 1984.


Well thats idiotic then because you have to continually change and adapt to the world around you. Sticking with "ideals" from the 18th century proves nothing and holds back development and in this case, costs lives.


Hey, I agree. Besides, with the mentality that we can use the Constitution as our shield against repression we've let a lot of our rights erode. The fact of the matter is, just because somebody found a system that worked for them 300 years ago doesn't mean we have to stick with that same system forever. Owning a firearm meant something entirely different back then than it does today, and we have to recognize that.
GloryOfThe80s
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by GloryOfThe80s »

Frigidus wrote:
Titanic wrote:
Frigidus wrote:It's a cultural thing. We're taught from an early age that amending the Bill of Rights would be equivalent to putting in place the system from 1984.


Well thats idiotic then because you have to continually change and adapt to the world around you. Sticking with "ideals" from the 18th century proves nothing and holds back development and in this case, costs lives.


Hey, I agree. Besides, with the mentality that we can use the Constitution as our shield against repression we've let a lot of our rights erode. The fact of the matter is, just because somebody found a system that worked for them 300 years ago doesn't mean we have to stick with that same system forever. Owning a firearm meant something entirely different back then than it does today, and we have to recognize that.


thank you - at least some sane people alive
isaiah40
Posts: 3990
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:14 pm

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by isaiah40 »

GloryOfThe80s wrote:
Frigidus wrote:
Titanic wrote:
Frigidus wrote:It's a cultural thing. We're taught from an early age that amending the Bill of Rights would be equivalent to putting in place the system from 1984.


Well thats idiotic then because you have to continually change and adapt to the world around you. Sticking with "ideals" from the 18th century proves nothing and holds back development and in this case, costs lives.


Hey, I agree. Besides, with the mentality that we can use the Constitution as our shield against repression we've let a lot of our rights erode. The fact of the matter is, just because somebody found a system that worked for them 300 years ago doesn't mean we have to stick with that same system forever. Owning a firearm meant something entirely different back then than it does today, and we have to recognize that.


thank you - at least some sane people alive


The problem is not that we have used the constitution as our shield, but just the opposite. We haven't used the constitution. Our forefathers designed the system with checks and balances, and one of them is the states rights to govern themselves as they see fit. They designed the federal government to work for the states, not the states for the federal government. That's why the constitution says "... a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

What is the name of this country? It is the united States of America (yes, I wrote it that way on purpose). If you read the actual constitution the "u" is small, not capitalized, States is plural meaning more than one state. If you look at the 50 states, they are each a sovereign nation. Each state has it's own constitution, has its' own Secretary of State and if you commit a crime in one state and run into another, the state that you committed a crime in has submit extradition paperwork to the state you ran to. In no other country in the world do we find this. For example, if you commit a crime in the province of Ontario in Canada, and you run to the province of British Columbia Canada, you can be arrested and sent back to Ontario without extradition paperwork.

Some years ago the Ninth Circuit Court ( which some consider to be the most liberal court in our country) declared that Wyoming is a Sovereign State! Sovereign means no power higher than itself. For example, the United States is a sovereign nation with no power over it. Canada cannot tell the US what to do and vise versa.

Question. Does owning a firearm today REALLY mean something today than it meant 250 years ago? Our constitution clearly says we have the right to bear arms. What is different from 250 years ago to today? We are the only country that has the right to bear arms. You may point to the wild west, BUT was it really that wild when almost every man carried a gun? If I wanted to kill you, and I saw you or knew you carried a gun, I'm going to go and find someone who doesn't, because I know you will use your gun to protect yourself.
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Titanic »

isaiah40 wrote:The problem is not that we have used the constitution as our shield, but just the opposite. We haven't used the constitution. Our forefathers designed the system with checks and balances, and one of them is the states rights to govern themselves as they see fit. They designed the federal government to work for the states, not the states for the federal government. That's why the constitution says "... a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

What is the name of this country? It is the united States of America (yes, I wrote it that way on purpose). If you read the actual constitution the "u" is small, not capitalized, States is plural meaning more than one state. If you look at the 50 states, they are each a sovereign nation. Each state has it's own constitution, has its' own Secretary of State and if you commit a crime in one state and run into another, the state that you committed a crime in has submit extradition paperwork to the state you ran to. In no other country in the world do we find this. For example, if you commit a crime in the province of Ontario in Canada, and you run to the province of British Columbia Canada, you can be arrested and sent back to Ontario without extradition paperwork.

Some years ago the Ninth Circuit Court ( which some consider to be the most liberal court in our country) declared that Wyoming is a Sovereign State! Sovereign means no power higher than itself. For example, the United States is a sovereign nation with no power over it. Canada cannot tell the US what to do and vise versa.

Question. Does owning a firearm today REALLY mean something today than it meant 250 years ago? Our constitution clearly says we have the right to bear arms. What is different from 250 years ago to today? We are the only country that has the right to bear arms. You may point to the wild west, BUT was it really that wild when almost every man carried a gun? If I wanted to kill you, and I saw you or knew you carried a gun, I'm going to go and find someone who doesn't, because I know you will use your gun to protect yourself.


How much can you get wrong in one post...

"Government of the people, by the people and for the people" is not in the constitution, it is a phrase that Lincoln coined (at Gettysburg I believe). Just getting that so wrong should invalidate your whole opinion, but I'll go through it anyway.

"one of them is the states rights to govern themselves as they see fit." - unless the powers are delegated to the federal government or not permitted to the state. Huge difference.

"They designed the federal government to work for the states, not the states for the federal government." - I'm no great expert on the constitution (and you aren't either apprently) but please expand on this, with examples of who devised this and where it is used within the constitution.

"What is the name of this country? It is the united States of America (yes, I wrote it that way on purpose). If you read the actual constitution the "u" is small, not capitalized, States is plural meaning more than one state." - What do you want, a cookie? This brings absolutely nothing to the discussion and proves squat.#

"Wyoming is a Sovereign State - Sovereign means no power higher than itself" - Context please, this could be easily misconstrued.

"Does owning a firearm today REALLY mean something today than it meant 250 years ago?" - Yes, it is heck of a difference todays compared to when it was written.

"What is different from 250 years ago to today?" - Too much. Highly dense sprawling urban areas, semi automatics, no loading time, ammunition packs of tens of bullets, smokeless guns, hugely accurate guns, long range guns, weapons which can cause multiple deaths etc.. Thats just the advancement in guns, never mind how different society is.

"We are the only country that has the right to bear arms." - Wrong.

"You may point to the wild west, BUT was it really that wild when almost every man carried a gun?" - 2nd Amendment was not written for the wild west, invalid arguament.

"If I wanted to kill you, and I saw you or knew you carried a gun, I'm going to go and find someone who doesn't, because I know you will use your gun to protect yourself." - If you wanted to kill me and didn't have a gun, YOU COULDN'T FCKING SHOOT ME.
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Frigidus »

I'd like to add a bit more to what Titanic said, although he got to a good start.

Titanic wrote:"Wyoming is a Sovereign State - Sovereign means no power higher than itself" - Context please, this could be easily misconstrued.


Not to mention that the Constitution sure as hell does not say that states are sovereign. That was true of the Articles of Confederation, but they scrapped that pretty quick since it didn't work. They couldn't let states do whatever they want, because it is impossible to have anything resembling a country that functions while all of its component parts have the ability to regulate trade, override federal law, leave when they get pissy, etc.

Titanic wrote:"What is different from 250 years ago to today?" - Too much. Highly dense sprawling urban areas, semi automatics, no loading time, ammunition packs of tens of bullets, smokeless guns, hugely accurate guns, long range guns, weapons which can cause multiple deaths etc.. Thats just the advancement in guns, never mind how different society is.


Let me elaborate. During the revolutionary war, the standard military-grade weapons were muskets that soldiers could expect to fire 4 times a minute, given that they are uninterrupted while loading. These things were also very inaccurate beyond 75 yards. You pretty much wouldn't hit your target. Although rifles did exist at the time, it took far too long to reload them to make up for having a much better useful range. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that we are using the sometimes touted "everybody has a gun" model of society. If somebody went crazy and tried to kill people back then, he could probably take down one guy, maybe two if he had a bayonette, before he got killed. Plus, you can't conceal the firearm back then. It's too big.

Now, fast forward to today. We no longer express firing time in shots per minute. You can pretty much talk about shots per second since reloading is no longer an issue. Depending on the particular model, pistols can be surprisingly accurate if somebody knows what they're doing with it. Even when you do have to reload it can be done fairly quickly. Let's use that same scenario again. Some guy has gone crazy, and decided to kill as many people as possible before going down. Assuming that everyone around him has their gun holstered, this guy could take down a hell of a lot of people before some vigilante A) realizes what's happening and doesn't start fleeing, B) pulls out the gun, turns off the safety and cocks it, C) gets off a shot on the moving target that will likely be firing back at anyone he sees with a gun. This is true even under the "everyone has a gun" scenario. In the real world very few people have or would want to have a gun in public. So you get some pretty gruesome shit.

I am actually OK with Americans having something useful for hunting and home defense. You don't need to blow 8 people away in either of these activities. Non-concealable bolt action weapons with small clips are all you need. Anything more makes me wonder what you intend to do with your weapon.
GloryOfThe80s
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 11:51 am
Gender: Male

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by GloryOfThe80s »

Frigidus wrote:Now, fast forward to today. We no longer express firing time in shots per minute. You can pretty much talk about shots per second since reloading is no longer an issue. Depending on the particular model, pistols can be surprisingly accurate if somebody knows what they're doing with it. Even when you do have to reload it can be done fairly quickly. Let's use that same scenario again. Some guy has gone crazy, and decided to kill as many people as possible before going down. Assuming that everyone around him has their gun holstered, this guy could take down a hell of a lot of people before some vigilante A) realizes what's happening and doesn't start fleeing, B) pulls out the gun, turns off the safety and cocks it, C) gets off a shot on the moving target that will likely be firing back at anyone he sees with a gun. This is true even under the "everyone has a gun" scenario. In the real world very few people have or would want to have a gun in public. So you get some pretty gruesome shit.

I am actually OK with Americans having something useful for hunting and home defense. You don't need to blow 8 people away in either of these activities. Non-concealable bolt action weapons with small clips are all you need. Anything more makes me wonder what you intend to do with your weapon.


exactly - plus, this is only the "technical" part of the answer to what is different between now and 250 years ago... adding the fact that the world is a completely different place should be enough to prove our point... I would hope :roll:
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by thegreekdog »

Skittles! wrote:
GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states that everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

BUT IT'S THE CONSTITUTION! YOU CAN'T AMEND THAT WHEN IT COMES TO GUN LAWS.


Wait... what? You can't amend the Constitution? Shit, what about those 26 "amendments" (of which the 2nd one is prominent in this discussion)? I guess we ignore those...

You can amend the Constitution; just takes a lot to do it. Much easier to just go to the US Supreme Court and let 9 old people decide what the Constitution says... although, those 9 old people recently held that the DC handgun ban violates the 2nd amendment.

EDIT - Reading the rest of these posts, this entire thread annoys the shit out of me. If you're going to post stupid fascist bullshit, learn some fucking history, read the fucking Constitution, figure out how the f*ck the government works, and then post something. Stop posting bullshit if you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about. Thanks.
Image
User avatar
Titanic
Posts: 1558
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm
Location: Northampton, UK

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by Titanic »

thegreekdog wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states that everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

BUT IT'S THE CONSTITUTION! YOU CAN'T AMEND THAT WHEN IT COMES TO GUN LAWS.


Wait... what? You can't amend the Constitution? Shit, what about those 26 "amendments" (of which the 2nd one is prominent in this discussion)? I guess we ignore those...

You can amend the Constitution; just takes a lot to do it. Much easier to just go to the US Supreme Court and let 9 old people decide what the Constitution says... although, those 9 old people recently held that the DC handgun ban violates the 2nd amendment.

EDIT - Reading the rest of these posts, this entire thread annoys the shit out of me. If you're going to post stupid fascist bullshit, learn some fucking history, read the fucking Constitution, figure out how the f*ck the government works, and then post something. Stop posting bullshit if you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about. Thanks.


I think Skittles was just parodying the stereotypical right winger. Considering your edit, you want to weigh in with your opinion?
User avatar
thegreekdog
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:55 am
Gender: Male
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by thegreekdog »

Titanic wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
Skittles! wrote:
GloryOfThe80s wrote:I never get why so many Americans oppose gun control or at least fear it because this or that part of the constitution (a mighty old piece of paper written in a time long ago) supposedly states that everyone has the right to arm themselves

the simple fact that gun crime is such a problem in the US and the percentage of gun crime is far lower in most other western nations should convince anyone that it's not such a bad idea to have at least some sort of mechanism that makes it a little more difficult to obtain a gun than just going to you local supermarket?

BUT IT'S THE CONSTITUTION! YOU CAN'T AMEND THAT WHEN IT COMES TO GUN LAWS.


Wait... what? You can't amend the Constitution? Shit, what about those 26 "amendments" (of which the 2nd one is prominent in this discussion)? I guess we ignore those...

You can amend the Constitution; just takes a lot to do it. Much easier to just go to the US Supreme Court and let 9 old people decide what the Constitution says... although, those 9 old people recently held that the DC handgun ban violates the 2nd amendment.

EDIT - Reading the rest of these posts, this entire thread annoys the shit out of me. If you're going to post stupid fascist bullshit, learn some fucking history, read the fucking Constitution, figure out how the f*ck the government works, and then post something. Stop posting bullshit if you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about. Thanks.


I think Skittles was just parodying the stereotypical right winger. Considering your edit, you want to weigh in with your opinion?


Yeah, I guess I do.

Congress does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Period. End of story. Therefore, a federal law banning handguns would have no legal basis to be upheld in court (ignoring the Constitutional limitations).

Congress does have the authority to regulate interstate commerce... unless it violates the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has the authority (the duty some might say) to regulate state or local government action that violates the US Constitution (i.e. the DC handgun ban).

If you would like to change the 2nd amendment, you must petition for a new amendment or else get the US Supreme Court to say that the second amendment doesn't apply (they won't say those exact words, but they'll limit the scope of the 2nd amendment by saying there is a "compelling state reason" for banning guns or whatever).

For the most part, these are basic tenets of US government. I know some may think these are stupid things, but, well, it's the way it works here.
Image
User avatar
ser stiefel
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:21 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Wash. State to Consider Nullification of Federal Gun Laws

Post by ser stiefel »

Titanic wrote:Government of the people, by the people and for the people" is not in the constitution, it is a phrase that Lincoln coined (at Gettysburg I believe). Just getting that so wrong should invalidate your whole opinion, but I'll go through it anyway.

"one of them is the states rights to govern themselves as they see fit." - unless the powers are delegated to the federal government or not permitted to the state. Huge difference.

"They designed the federal government to work for the states, not the states for the federal government." - I'm no great expert on the constitution (and you aren't either apprently) but please expand on this, with examples of who devised this and where it is used within the constitution.

"What is the name of this country? It is the united States of America (yes, I wrote it that way on purpose). If you read the actual constitution the "u" is small, not capitalized, States is plural meaning more than one state." - What do you want, a cookie? This brings absolutely nothing to the discussion and proves squat.#

"Wyoming is a Sovereign State - Sovereign means no power higher than itself" - Context please, this could be easily misconstrued.


A very good essay concerning the founding of the United States can be found here:
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/09/03/essential-liberty-part-1/

If you are interested in this topic, I heartily recommend this essay. Also, part 2 for which a link can be found within part 1.

Here is a small piece of it (bold added by me as it pertains to the discussion):

George Washington and the delegates to the Convention wrote, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Said Benjamin Franklin of the new document, "I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. ... Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best."

Of the 55 delegates, 39 signed the new Constitution while the remaining delegates declined, most out of concern that the power apportioned through the new plan was a threat to the sovereignty of the several states, and thus, to individual liberty.

The ensuing ratification debates among the states were vigorous.

James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton authored The Federalist Papers advocating ratification of the new Constitution.

Patrick Henry's Anti-Federalists opposed the plan under consideration because they believed it allocated too much power to the central government. Henry, Samuel Adams, George Mason, Robert Yates, Thomas Paine, Samuel Bryan and Richard Henry Lee were among those who spoke against ratification, and some authored several essays that were aggregated and published as The Anti-Federalist Papers.

The new Constitution stipulated that once nine of the 13 original States ratified it through state conventions, a date would be established for its implementation. This created controversy, as the document in question had no standing authority to make such a stipulation. However, once the ninth state, New Hampshire, reported its convention's approval on June 21st, 1788, the Continental Congress set the date for enactment of the Constitution for March 4th, 1789.

With Rhode Island's ratification on May 29th, 1790, all 13 states had endorsed the Constitution.

Though critical of many of its provisions, in reflection Thomas Jefferson wrote of the Convention and its product, "The example of changing a constitution by assembling the wise men of the state, instead of assembling armies, will be worth as much to the world as the former examples we had given them. The constitution, too, which was the result of our deliberation, is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men."



edit: underline added to bold, for legibility
The Tick wrote:How dare you! I know evil is bad, but come on! Eating kittens is just plain... plain wrong, and no one should do it! EVER!
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”