tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post3172946033052470103..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: The Nullity of Nullification and the Revolutionary Nature of 'We The People'- Touching on Tyranny pt.4Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-18209618393186123562013-09-12T07:52:25.012-05:002013-09-12T07:52:25.012-05:00Mushroom said "Regardless, as far as a simple...Mushroom said "Regardless, as far as a simple person like myself is concerned, since the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed", and despite judicial rulings upholding and endorsing some "reasonable" infringements, I think any regulation of firearms by the federal government is a violation of the Constitution."<br /><br />I don't disagree, except maybe with 'reasonable infringements' (an oxymoron ;-) ). I'm pretty much a 'Shall not' kinda guy, thinking that 'Shall not' means 'Shall not' and doubly so for 'Shall not infringe'. I agree that any infringement upon the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional, and an attack not just on the 2nd Amdt, but upon all of our rights.<br /><br />I'm entirely in agreement with Missouri refusing its compliance with such laws, I'm entirely behind their withdrawing the state's administrative aid to the Feds, I'm entirely behind Sheriff's de-certifying the law enforcement credentials of those agents it is within their power to do so with (there's a link in this post to a Sheriff in California who did just that to the Fed Parks Dept).<br /><br />I am an enthusiastic rabblerouser for the 9th & 10th amendments, and I entirely get why most people look at this law and see it as just that, defending the 2nd Amdt and pushing back against federal overreach. As I told some friends last night, most of whom agree with you,<br /><br />"Yep. Thrilled by the sentiment, depressed by the fact. Short term win, long term disaster... mark my words. See me in 20 years and pray with me that I'll be eating them."<br /><br />But I am just as much a supporter of the Constitution and the process it contains, because that process, the foundation of our Nation's and our State's Laws, is the only means of containing power, and if we break them, especially via 'the law', and especially for a good cause, only disaster can follow.<br /><br />Those federal laws which are designed to violate not only the Constitution, but our very Rights, most definitely do need to be opposed, but that opposition needs to remain within the lines of the State's just powers, and the citizens actual rights. See <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2013/09/one-shot-across-bow-and-two-shots-in.html" rel="nofollow">Colorado's recall of their two anti-2nd Amdt senators yesterday</a> - an awesome demonstration of lawful power! <br /><br />But pitting a lesser power against a greater power, with only power left to decide... calling for a fight and bringing a knife to it when you know damn well the other is bringing canon - that doesn't end well. At the very least, it will bring disrepute upon even the effort to oppose such 'laws'. This is the Missouri equivalent to Obama's Syrian action... it will do nothing, and open the door for who knows what.<br /><br />What's likely to happen here? At the very least, the Missouri Supreme Court is going to overturn the law, and everything that is good within it, such as the 4th, 5th & 7th clauses I noted above, are going to be tarred along with the petulant, childish, asinine 6th clause. And why? So some activists & lawmakers could feel like the 'made a point'.<br /><br />They certainly did.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm going to start cannibalizing the next post, which hopefully gets out tonight, and we wouldn't want to risk making it too short.<br /><br />;-)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-72977485778886115232013-09-11T21:59:34.875-05:002013-09-11T21:59:34.875-05:00I think I have to differ somewhat. The Second Ame...I think I have to differ somewhat. The Second Amendment, like all the others, has been subject to judicial interpretation. But, really, the only grounds for a federal regulation regarding firearms is under the Commerce Clause. <br /><br />At one point, and I don't know if it is in this version of the bill, there was some verbiage about arms manufactured, purchased, and held within the borders of the state -- an attempt to exempt them from the Commerce Clause. <br /><br />Regardless, as far as a simple person like myself is concerned, since the Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed", and despite judicial rulings upholding and endorsing some "reasonable" infringements, I think any regulation of firearms by the federal government is a violation of the Constitution.<br /><br />The equivalent case would be, prior to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, if the federal government had attempted to levy direct taxes upon the citizens of the states. The states would not only have been right in not enforcing the law, but they would have been correct in protecting their citizens from such an oppressive intrusion by the central government. <br /><br />If the federal government wants to regulate firearms then they ought to amend the Constitution to allow such an action. Good luck with that.mushroomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07651027035577798096noreply@blogger.com