• MO HB.436 is sent to Governor Nixon of Missouri...
    46 replies, posted
If this passes, I'm movin' to Missouri.
This technically isnt nullifying the law, just making it against the law to enforce it. So if you are a federal agent, and you arrest someone in the state of Missourri for a gun control law, you will get arrested and tried in a state court.
[QUOTE=Blackfire76;40591725]This technically isnt nullifying the law, just making it against the law to enforce it.[/QUOTE] So they try and rectify a federal law with a state law? lol, they must be all kinds of crazy for thinking that would work :v: [QUOTE=Blackfire76;40591725] So if you are a federal agent, and you arrest someone in the state of Missourri for a gun control law, you will get arrested and tried in a state court.[/QUOTE] They'd just get a good lawyer to drag it all the way to the federal court and [B]THEN[/B] lay down the federal law. And as mentioned before, there'll be a helluva lot more federal agents in that state if they put that law into effect. In short: this law is so counter-productive it's hilarious.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;40590544]Nullification Crisis II: Missouri Boogaloo[/QUOTE] Civil War II: Confederate Boogaloo
[QUOTE=yawmwen;40591349]no it's not. in washington and colorado it is fully legalized.[/QUOTE] There's a fine line here.... Yes in those states- those states say its legal (and though I don't know I suspect it's "conditionally" legal). But if you ask a dea officer he will say that state is within his jurisdiction- and to him that means it is still an illegal drug.
[QUOTE=Solomon;40593222]Civil War II: Confederate Boogaloo[/QUOTE] HAPPENING II: WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP IT BOOGALOO
[QUOTE=Solomon;40593222]Civil War II: Confederate Boogaloo[/QUOTE] There is no way they'd try to suceed again. Even if a lot of southern stated could there is no way they'd be able to win.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40590830]What I'm asking is if it's illegal for a state to do something like this, why is pot decriminalized in certain states? I'm asking about how the law works. Pot itself is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich"]federal government still has full authority to enforce possession marijuana laws[/URL], but they simply don't care enough to enforce petty pot crime.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;40595418]The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich"]federal government still has full authority to enforce possession marijuana laws[/URL], but they simply don't care enough to enforce petty pot crime.[/QUOTE] Yes, but contrary to pot laws, if a Federal officer enforces Federal laws in their state, they'll be going to jail.
damn hippies
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40593256]There's a fine line here.... Yes in those states- those states say its legal (and though I don't know I suspect it's "conditionally" legal). But if you ask a dea officer he will say that state is within his jurisdiction- and to him that means it is still an illegal drug.[/QUOTE] well yea, because there is a contradiction between state and federal law. that doesn't make it decriminalized. decriminalized simply means it's a civil offense.
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;40595780]Yes, but contrary to pot laws, if a Federal officer enforces Federal laws in their state, they'll be going to jail.[/QUOTE] Whose jail? Do you honestly think state officers are going to arrest federal agents?
As dumb as this sounds, i actually would love to be able to buy some guns that are banned on the federal scale. I've been wanting a suppressor for my handgun for some time, and it's a pain in the absolute fucking ass to fill out paperwork and pay the tax of $200 just to buy a $700 tube of metal with baffles, and if you wanna replace the baffles, any single part has the $200 tax.
[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40590830]What I'm asking is if it's illegal for a state to do something like this, why is pot decriminalized in certain states? I'm asking about how the law works. Pot itself is irrelevant.[/QUOTE] legal in a state at its most basic means that the state district attorney will not press charges for it
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;40590616]Why the hell do US states have the ability to do this?[/QUOTE] "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine That is not, however, to say that this act they're trying to pass isn't over the top. At the least, tax guns. Just cause you tax my shit don't mean I can't get it. Taxes are ok.
Firearms are taxed. Transfers, 4473's, and the genereal sale of firearms still falls under sales tax. I understand what you mean, but when I purchase an M1 Garand for $1100, and have 5% sales tax for the state I'm living in, the state still makes roughly $55 on top. Not to mention in certain states such as New York, you have things like Luxury Tax which over time really do add up.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;40590616]Why the hell do US states have the ability to do this?[/QUOTE] Because most other federated states allow for something similar. German bundeslander do for instance. The difference is, that in the US the spin away is often stronger than the spintowards. Keep in mind that there's a difference between will do and can do. Overall I do not think this law is actually legal as the federal lawgiver has relative freedoms on what to consider to fall under their purvey and what not. [quote] "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine [/quote] Notice one thing though, it does generally talks about external threats, not threats from the state. As such a view like this, is generally well valid as long as the state is unable to well enforce it's supremacy against both an invader as well as someone who refuses abide by laws. Just to counter that little quip.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.