Idaho tells Congress: 'Cease & Desist' w-the Firearms Tyranny!!!!

[smith357]

I have got to move to Idaho!


http://www.legislature.idaho.g...tion/2009/HJM003.pdf



LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Sixtieth Legislature First Regular Session 2009

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 3

BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE


A JOINT MEMORIAL
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES
IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION
REPRESENTING THE STATE OF IDAHO IN THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES.

We, your Memorialists, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the State of Idaho
assembled in the First Regular Session of the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, do hereby respectfully
represent that:

WHEREAS, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does not simply
provide for a collective right or a right for the states to establish militias; rather it provides for
the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and

WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to protect one’s
self, family and possessions from either the private lawlessness of other persons or the tyranny
of government; and

WHEREAS, the right to keep and bear arms is also meant to protect the general private
uses of firearms in activities such as hunting and other sporting activities; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128
S.Ct. 2783 (2008), recently struck down a firearms ban in the District of Columbia, explicitly
ruling that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess firearms for
private use; and

WHEREAS, despite this ruling, legislation has been introduced in the United States
House of Representatives calling for a system of mandatory federal licensing of all firearm
owners; and

WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would require all firearm owners to apply for and
carry a federally issued picture identification in order to keep any firearm in their homes; and

WHEREAS, the legislation introduced would make it a federal crime to keep a loaded
firearm or an unloaded firearm and ammunition within any premises including, under certain
circumstances, American homes where a child may be present; and

WHEREAS, the legislation introduced specifically purports to preempt any state or local
law inconsistent with it; and

WHEREAS, the introduced legislation, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale
Act of 2009, is a direct imposition on each American’s individual right to keep and bear arms
in their homes and for their protection.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of
the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein,
that members of the United States Congress cease and desist attempting to enact federal
legislation impinging on the individual right of every American to keep and bear arms in any manner. Specifically, that members of Congress oppose the passage of the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, and any similar legislation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate be, and she is hereby
authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation
representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.

[magking1971]

A state finally has some balls, about time. I would only need to drive 10 miles east to move to Idaho.

[srsinternets]

Way to fucking go, Idaho! More states need to jump on this, otherwise I don't think a single state alone will be enough to sway Congress.

[Atmosfear]

Um this law is just as constitutional as a firearm ban.

Lowest. Common. Denominator. :sigh:

[smith357]

Um this law is just as constitutional as a firearm ban.

Lowest. Common. Denominator. :sigh:

Elaborate please.

[Atmosfear]

Well ever since we lost the War of Northern Aggression, states lost the right to supercede the federal government. Except in cases where the following of a state law does not conflict with following a federal law (for example, the federal government says you must be 18 to weeble wobble, while the state law says you must be 19 to weeble wobble; either way, 17 year olds aren't weeble wobbling), the federal law is what matters. Thanks to the Commerce Clause, the federal government has license to legislate just about anything it wants to, and very few laws justified by the commerce clause are actually found unconstitutional.

Besides, a "cease and desist" order is issued by the judiciary, it's not even part of the fucking legislature.

[no_brains_no_worries]

Besides, a "cease and desist" order is issued by the judiciary, it's not even part of the fucking legislature.

I was just thinking that. It sounds to me they are trying to fight fire with fire, but unfortunately in both cases that fire is unconstitutional.

[Syme]

I think the Idaho state legislature knows that they can't legally issue a C&D order to the United States Congress, and that their state laws cannot supercede federal laws. This is a statement of principle, nothing of more; I'm sure they know it doesn't have any legal meaning. It's weird that they worded it as a C&D order, but hey, if that's how they want to do it. At least they're saying something, I guess. Too bad it's Idaho and not a state anyone cares about.

[Kal El]

If it was a more populous state, people might actually care. With it being Idaho, I am sure Congress will privately laugh at them and call them stupid hicks.

[crunker]

Well ever since we lost the War of Northern Aggression

You're not serious, are you?

And no, states can still supersede the fed gov. Patriot Act's nullified in several jurisdictions, for instance.

[Atmosfear]

Until it gets challenged in the Supreme Court, a state can do anything. Just because they signed a piece of paper doesn't mean it's constitutional. I had a law professor who said probably 50% of the local downtown ordinances in our county were arguably unconstitutional, but who's going to pay a lawyer $300+ an hour to prove it when the fine is 50 bucks.

If the government needs to enforce the Patriot Act, it will. It'll let the lawyers clean up the red tape afterwards. Just because there's no incentive to challenge it doesn't mean it's constitutional.

[Syme]

Atmo is right, crunker. It is true that states or localities "can" supersede the federal government insofar as it is possible for them to pass and enforce laws that contradict or contravene federal laws. But if it ever comes to a legal challenge, the federal law wins every time; the Constitution says so, article 6, paragraph 2, the Supremacy Clause. So while they "can" supersede federal law in this practical sense, they can't pass a law that actually, legally trumps a federal law. They can just act like they have and get away with it until matters are set straight in court.

And yes, of course he's serious about the Civil War. The federal government prosecuted a war that devastated half the country and killed better than half a million people in order to stop previously independent polities from withdrawing from a political compact that they had entered into voluntarily. Apparently the United States is like a gang--you want out, you have to get the shit beat out of you (except even then you don't get out). I don't know about you, but I think that's a pretty shitty way to run a country.

[bacon ops]

Well ever since we lost the War of Northern Aggression, states lost the right to supercede the federal government. Except in cases where the following of a state law does not conflict with following a federal law (for example, the federal government says you must be 18 to weeble wobble, while the state law says you must be 19 to weeble wobble; either way, 17 year olds aren't weeble wobbling), the federal law is what matters. Thanks to the Commerce Clause, the federal government has license to legislate just about anything it wants to, and very few laws justified by the commerce clause are actually found unconstitutional.

Besides, a "cease and desist" order is issued by the judiciary, it's not even part of the fucking legislature.

Not Texas.

Look up our claim to sovereignty and how we're pushing hard to prove that it's valid.

[Syme]

Not Texas.

Look up our claim to sovereignty and how we're pushing hard to prove that it's valid.

Not going to get you anywhere. Even if you "prove" that claim is valid, the federal government obviously won't recognize it. Short of Constitutional amendment, there is absolutely no conceivable legal situation in which the federal government could be forced to say "Yes Texas, you have a valid claim to sovereignty and we will honor it, go do what you want without federal interference". Sorry, but the idea of Texan sovereignty is just a pipe dream for Texans. You have two options for establishing the sovereignty of Texas (or any other state). They are:

1. Get the Constitution amended (good luck)

2. Fight, and win, another civil war against the federal government (good luck)

[bacon ops]

Not going to get you anywhere. The hard reality of the situation is that ultimately, the federal government gets to decide whether your claim to sovereignty is valid. Their opinion is the only one that really matters. If they don't recognize that claim, it's meaningless. And obviously they won't recognize it. Texas has exactly the same chance of getting around the Supremacy Clause as any other state: No chance.

Except we could go toe to toe with 49 states and come out on top.

I mean, come on.


DISCLAIMER: before someone quotes a whole butt-load of statistics and military stuff at me, realize that I was joking.

please.