Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:53 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Montana working on a BATF endrun 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:31 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Sietch wrote:
mrockern wrote:
What is a law made "in Pursuance thereof"?

It's whatever SCOTUS says it is.

Congress can enact whatever they want, and if SCOTUS says it's constitutional, that's the law.

There's the catch of a common law system.


When was the last time a state told Congress to fuck off, in so many words? I mean specifically regarding firearms regulations. The Montana "law" does.

Let's entertain throwbacks to the Civil Rights era, since this is inevitably heading in that direction. On whose behalf did the United States intervene militarily to enforce their laws? Black kids. They needed to get to school. We want kids to get to school. So it fits the bill.

Now Montana raises its finger to the federal government. So, this time when it comes to a stare-down, on whose behalf will the United States be acting when they subjugate the state by force of arms? Is it still for the black kids? No. Montana-made guns have yet to be identified as the scourge of black youth everywhere.

It's for the sake of the firearms then, perhaps. Who knows what people do to certain classes of weapons behind closed doors? Guns can't speak for themselves any more than they can fire themselves. So they ought to be protected? Please.

My point is: how the hell would the United States make it kosher to take on a state that way? They would really take it to blows, maybe kill some people in Montana? Who would they be protecting?

Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge? Think about that outrage. If kids need to get to school, then all's fair. But people are much less keen to line up behind the government regarding victimless crimes, especially the Waco/BATFE-"we are enjoined to kill you, shooting first if we must, in order to capture you. If you lock your door, and we shoot you to death after breaking through your door, it's unarguably your fault. You'll have killed yourself"-posture.

What will they say to polish the look of elements of a state government literally under siege?

No. I don't think so. They wouldn't dare. But now we're playing What If. So...meh :?


The civil rights analogy fits this well.

There was indeed a SCOTUS decision that led to federal intervention, it was Brown v. Board of Education.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 13, 2009 5:01 pm 
Junior Member

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 9
Location: Anoka
For better or worse, mn legislature HF 2376.

_________________
De Oppresso Liber


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group