Second Amendment Guarantee Act

[izzy]

This would be cool if it passed. It eliminates all state level gun control laws.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/collins-introduces-legislation-aimed-at-repealing-safe-act

[Ah Pook]

This would be cool if it passed. It eliminates all state level gun control laws.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/collins-introduces-legislation-aimed-at-repealing-safe-act
I am all for states rights. That said, if Gov. Cuomo is against it, I'm all for it.

Lots of references to mentally ill own weapons but nothing addressing engaging mental illness. [Shake]

[Zundfolge]

If only the house and senate were under Republican control, then it might have a chance.

[BPTactical]

If only the house and senate were under Republican control, then it might have a chance.

LOL, like that will happen....



Oh, wait..

[Gman]

If only the house and senate were under Republican control, then it might have a chance.
...with a Republican in the Executive Branch, it could happen.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[brutal]

If only the house and senate were under Republican control, then it might have a chance.

Just like the Obamacare repeal huh?

[cstone]

I find Congress to be most useful when they are in recess.

If it wasn't for the millions of our dollars that it would cost to provide, I would support a Congressional Intentions Office (CIO). It would function much like the "nonpartisan" Congressional Budget Office (CBO). [Sarcasm2] The CIO would examine and report on all proposed legislation. The CIO would actually score every bill according to the Law of Unintended Consequences. First the CIO would look at the Title of any bill and immediately assume that the bill would do exactly the opposite of whatever the Title states as the purpose of the legislation. Next the CIO would look at the bills authors, sponsors, and co-sponsors and mark the bill according to the past results of legislation proposed and supported by these same legislators. Lastly, the CIO would assist the CBO in determining the actual cost of any proposed legislation by marking up any CBO cost estimates by factors of 10 or 20 times the stated cost. Of course Congress being the deliberative body that it is, all elected representatives would then promptly crow about or disregard the CIO report depending of course on whether they support the bill or not. Legislation would be passed or not based on who benefits the most and no one in Washington would care how much any proposed legislation will cost our great, great, great, grandchildren in interest on the national debt.

Business as usual in our US Congress. [Party1]

The best government is less government.

[GilpinGuy]

If only the house and senate were under Republican control, then it might have a chance.

There is such a little difference between the two these days.....yes, there are talking points issues that get spoon fed to the dichotomy believers and they believe it. And yes, Trump is different. I hope he pulls shit together and gets shit done (doubtfull - the system is bigger than he is).

Both sides are about CONTROL. This is why the phony "repeal" bullshit failed. Republicans want control over you just as much as Democrats.

[Bailey Guns]

Mixed opinions on this. On the one hand I'm all for fewer gun laws and gun control. On the other hand, the federal government is in charge of health insurance.

Yeah...that's a tough one.

[68Charger]

Mixed opinions on this. On the one hand I'm all for fewer gun laws and gun control. On the other hand, the federal government is in charge of health insurance.

Yeah...that's a tough one.

And don't forget that the end goal is single payer... so what's the end goal with having the Fed in charge of all gun laws?


Would be fantastic if it was written such that states cannot RESTRICT rights more than the Federal Gov't... but that they can remove federal restrictions at the state level... so if the Fed passes something that restricts rights more, then a state could nullify that law within their borders.

but that will never happen.

[izzy]

I'm torn on it too, the feds could implement more restrictions in one swoop. They can do that anyways so what the hell. Give people in CA and NY their ARs back, give us our mags back.

[68Charger]

This would be cool if it passed. It eliminates all state level gun control laws.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/collins-introduces-legislation-aimed-at-repealing-safe-act

Governor Cuomo issued the following statement Monday afternoon. (Translated by yours truly)

"In 2013, following the Sandy Hook tragedy, New York State used the opportunity to pass the toughest gun control laws in the nation. Democrats and RINOs came together to assault the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers in the entire state, ban lower than standard capacity magazines and provide a mechanism where the state keep guns out of the hands of anyone we put on a list without due process, while simultaneously disregarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners as much as we think we can get away with.

"Now, in a blatant political ploy to represent his actual constituents (who are in rural NY and had the SAFE act imposed on them against their will and votes), Chris Collins is turning his back on the state and providing millions of people with undue freedom. By fighting to roll back vital legislation that provides control over the people of the Empire State, Collins is demonstrating once again that he is beholden to no one but the very people who elected him and have overwhelmingly stated they want the SAFE act repealed.

"This disturbing bill puts MY control over New Yorkers in harm's way - and to make it worse, there is actually basis for it. We have worked hard to ensure our position of control over the people and visitors of New York. The courts we stacked with liberal activist judges have barely upheld New York's law as consistent with the Constitution, partially because a well-timed death of a supreme court justice. We understand that Washington is in in control of those that oppose me- we just ask that they don't do anything to set back the progress we've been able to make to spite them."

[Aloha_Shooter]

I despise Cuomo -- all three of them -- but I think the 10th Amendment is there for a reason and SAGA violates it. The 2 proper courses of action do not involve new legislation but instead would be to get the SAFE Act reversed because it violates the Second Amendement or to get NY State revoke it. One bad act shouldn't require another and passing more legislation just reinforces the modern bad idea that the federal government can tell states what to do.

[Zundfolge]

...but I think the 10th Amendment is there for a reason and SAGA violates it.

Yeah, I see your point (and don't necessarily disagree with it). But the thing is, if we are truly living in a "post constitutional America" then we're never going to secure the rights we had under the old defunct US Constitution by playing by the old rules. This has long been a problem with conservatives, showing up to a dirty street fight wearing boxing gloves and prattling on about Marquess de Queensbury.

Now it seems to me we should wait for this post constitutional method until after we've failed at getting an Article V Convention together (which is truly the last chance we have to save the constitution).

[CS1983]

I despise Cuomo -- all three of them -- but I think the 10th Amendment is there for a reason and SAGA violates it. The 2 proper courses of action do not involve new legislation but instead would be to get the SAFE Act reversed because it violates the Second Amendement or to get NY State revoke it. One bad act shouldn't require another and passing more legislation just reinforces the modern bad idea that the federal government can tell states what to do.

How exactly is the Fed clarifying its role and scope as a guarantor of the 2nd amendment against states which would seek to encroach on it a violation of the 10th?

[Aloha_Shooter]

How exactly is the Fed clarifying its role and scope as a guarantor of the 2nd amendment against states which would seek to encroach on it a violation of the 10th?

Passing additional legislation which is not covered by the powers specified for the federal government encroaches on the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give the USG role or scope as a guarantor of rights, it forbids the USG from encroaching on specified rights. Big difference. The way to prevent states from encroaching on rights specfied in the Constitution -- 2nd Amendment or otherwise -- is to bring it up as a point of constitutional law as they did with Heller. It's a long slow painful process but if we violate it for a good cause, we only embolden those who violate it for bad causes.

[GilpinGuy]

Passing additional legislation which is not covered by the powers specified for the federal government encroaches on the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give the USG role or scope as a guarantor of rights, it forbids the USG from encroaching on specified rights. Big difference. The way to prevent states from encroaching on rights specfied in the Constitution -- 2nd Amendment or otherwise -- is to bring it up as a point of constitutional law as they did with Heller. It's a long slow painful process but if we violate it for a good cause, we only embolden those who violate it for bad causes.

Amen, as frustrating as it is. I do fear that in the end, we will lose the war by fighting the battle "the right way". Leftists don't fight by the rules.

[DavieD55]

90% of what they do is to subvert the American people and Constitution. They rely on the ignorance of the dumbed down public to subvert the American people. Most of their bills are deceptively titled to sound like good things but in reality are detrimental to our well being, livelihoods, freedom and liberty.

[CS1983]

Passing additional legislation which is not covered by the powers specified for the federal government encroaches on the 10th Amendment. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give the USG role or scope as a guarantor of rights, it forbids the USG from encroaching on specified rights. Big difference. The way to prevent states from encroaching on rights specfied in the Constitution -- 2nd Amendment or otherwise -- is to bring it up as a point of constitutional law as they did with Heller. It's a long slow painful process but if we violate it for a good cause, we only embolden those who violate it for bad causes.

I see your point, but I side with Zundfolge on the post-Constitutional paradigm in which we reside. The Constitution was shredded a while ago, imo. If we're gonna have a violation of Federal powers, then let it be in our favor.

[Zundfolge]

I see your point, but I side with Zundfolge on the post-Constitutional paradigm in which we reside. The Constitution was shredded a while ago, imo. If we're gonna have a violation of Federal powers, then let it be in our favor.

As long as our violations of Federal powers are in line with the original intent of the Constitution, I'm not too worried. The truth is we may end up having to violate the Constitution to restore the Constitution (no I don't like the idea, but part of the Alinsky tactics being used by the D's against us are engineering things to where we're boxed in by our own rules).

[TFOGGER]

A friend pointed out the hidden danger in consolidation, particularly as it applies to CCW and reciprocity. If you wanted to attack CCW on a national level right now, you would have to fight (in court and the court of public opinion) 40-odd separate fights. If nationalized CCW becomes a reality, then suddenly they could concentrate their efforts at one point of attack. There is a certain robustness in maintaining the current diversity of regulation that may outweigh the convenience of a uniform national system. Also, given the backlog on NFA approvals at BATFEOMGWTF, do we really want that to be the choke point for CCW? I think this argument could be applied to other facets of our sport/hobby/interest/means of defense as well.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I would be happy to be able to take my CCW back home to Hawaii with me and carry it concealed but I'm far more worried about CA, NY, NJ, HI imposing their "values" on CO the next time the Dems take control of Congress or the White House even more than they already do. There is simply no foundation for the USG to have this power -- I'd rather see Congress repeal the NFA.