MO tells feds to pack sands also

[TexasAviator]

Howdy TexasAviator,



Interesting post. It doesn't have anything to do with reality but its still interesting plus you post proved my point....... Local, county or state officials and/or LEO have nothing to do with enforcing Federal Law(s).

As they say in the movies "It's above your paygrade!".

Like I posted before I help place a County Sheriff into the back seat of a Fed Gov't owned Crown Vic after a Fed Agent ( IRS ) place the cuffs on him for interfering with a Fed Govt operation. They didn't do anything to him except to "cuff & stuff" him so we didn't have to listen to him run his DA mouth. After the IRS was done I help him out of the car, removed the cuffs and he was more than happy to get in his car a drive off as fast as he could.

The smoking pot thing is a lame example. You can possess 99 pounds of pot and its only a misdemeanor on the Federal level.

Even if it passes MO law will be worth less than used toilet paper.

Since you are an "expert" on the US Constitution you already know this.

Pretty simple.

Paul

Thank you, but I wouldn't call myself an expert though. Just someone who has read it and the context in which it was drafted and signed.

The Pot example is anything but lame. It is the entire precedence for what you say can't be done and refutes the "worth less than used toilet paper" claim. If you read the attached link to my other post the Cato paper lays it out. I admit its not light reading but I still think its worth the read. The short version is that States today either make things legal or don't make things illegal even though the feds want them to. It is a common practice. So the first part of the bills in the states regarding not enforcing a ban have a very long precedence and are a legal fact.

Edit: I forgot to add that there is also the Anti Commandeering principle that says the feds can not force a state to enforce a statue it doesn't want to. That has been upheld by the Supreme court many times.

On the second part, I completely agree that there are going to be legal conflicts, I even said so in my earlier post. Those will have to be sorted out by the supreme court, that can take months in a fast cycle or years in a normal cycle. But it will garner attention and will show where the states (and the voters in those states) stand. That will in turn make our elected representatives think twice before enacting something and if it does get enacted hopefully that vote will cause them to be booted out in the primary and if not then hopefully in the general.

Far from being useless both sections of the proposals serve a purpose. The first section deprives the feds of what they would really need to enforce such a thing, man power. The second, sets the stage for a supreme court fight wich would be the best chance, based on the current make up of Congress, the Supreme Court and the White House, to have a ban thrown out.

The states need to start standing up to the feds, it was the states that created the federal government. I hope this is just the beginning of many issues to come where the states stand up to DC!

[MilProGuy]

Or in the process of it, hopefully.

Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment ? Tenth Amendment Center Blog

Sarge

Mississippi's Governor announced today (1-16-2013) that Mississippi Law Enforcement agencies will not be required to follow the illegal actions against the 2nd Amendment taken by the president today in his executive orders.

[Sr40ken]

worthless as toilet paper? I think not.......... "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice".

[lonestarbandit]

Unfortunantly precedent has long been set since President Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion and answered the question about whether the Federal government could enforce its laws.
President Lincoln answered the question of nullification when he put down the southerners who were committing treason in defense of slavery.
This all sounds cheering and warm and fuzzy feeling. But history tells us another story. 'Taint happening folks.
I will be overjoyed to be wrong on this. But I don't believe that to be the case.

[Sarge]

Here ya go Paul (Stengun):

What If the States Refuse to Comply? ? Tenth Amendment Center

Snipped from the article:

For a state to force the federal government to do anything would be very difficult but by nullifying the unconstitutional “law” or regulation they have placed the feds on notice that they have exceeded their authority. And if enough states nullify the law, the feds are powerless to enforce it. The best example is the Real ID Act signed into law in 2005, essentially, it is “null and void” because a majority of the states refuse to comply. Is this not the answer to how to treat all unconstitutional laws, just nullify and ignore them?

Oh and I was incorrect in stating that EO's apply only to federal officials. IF either the House or the Senate approve the order then the EO has the "force of law".

[MilProGuy]

Here ya go Paul (Stengun):

What If the States Refuse to Comply? ? Tenth Amendment Center

Snipped from the article:



Oh and I was incorrect in stating that EO's apply only to federal officials. IF either the House or the Senate approve the order then the EO has the "force of law".

Gotta' love Mississippi... Mississippi gov. moves to make Obama?s gun control ?illegal? | The Raw Story

[ozzy]

Pack sand bags or pound sand? I like #2 myself.

[Slakev]

I hope my state does the same but the blind up north may convince my states politicians to drink the kool-aid.

[45 Forever]

I'm working hard on TN if they don't get on the ball soon I'll have to get all my old fart friends together and wander around the capital saying just what needs to be said get with it or start looking for a new job and employment sucks down here.

[MilProGuy]

I'm working hard on TN if they don't get on the ball soon I'll have to get all my old fart friends together and wander around the capital saying just what needs to be said get with it or start looking for a new job and employment sucks down here.

Go on with your "bad" self!