Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested
Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!
State Lawmakers & Sheriffs Vow to Defy Obama’s Executive Orders on Guns
An AR-15 is seen for sale on the wall at the National Armory gun store on January 16, 2013 in Pompano Beach, Florida. Credit: Getty Images
GRANTS PASS, Ore. (TheBlaze/AP) — From Oregon to Mississippi, President Barack Obama’s proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.
“A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, `Follow the Constitution,’” said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.
But their actual powers to defy federal law are limited. And much of the impassioned rhetoric amounts to political posturing until — and if — Congress acts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said Wednesday it’s unlikely an assault weapons ban would actually pass the House of Representatives. Absent action by Congress, all that remains are 23 executive orders Obama announced that apply only to the federal government, not local or state law enforcement.
Gun advocates have seen Obama as an enemy despite his expression of support for the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a personal right to have guns. So his call for new measures — including background checks for all gun buyers and Senate confirmation of a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — triggered new vows of defiance.
In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.
“If someone kicks open my door and they’re entering my home, I’d like as many bullets as I could to protect my children, and if I only have three, then the ability for me to protect my family is greatly diminished,” Bryant said. “And what we’re doing now is saying, `We’re standing against the federal government taking away our civil liberties.’”
Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for federal agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammunition. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools.
“We’re tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that quite honestly doesn’t solve the problem,” Carr said.
John Jackson, co-owner of Capitol City Arms Supply shows off an AR-15 assault rifle for sale Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 at his business in Springfield, Ill. Credit: AP
Legislative proposals to pre-empt new federal gun restrictions also have arisen in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska.
A Wyoming bill specifies that any federal limitation on guns would be unenforceable. It also would make it a state felony for federal agents to try to enforce restrictions.
“I think there are a lot of people who would want to take all of our guns if they could,” said co-sponsor Rep. Kendell Kroeker, a Republican. “And they’re only restrained by the opposition of the people, and other lawmakers who are concerned about our rights.”
Republican state Sen. Larry Hicks credited Wyoming’s high rate of gun ownership for a low rate of gun violence.
“Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life,” Hicks said. “We’re not insulated from the real world in Wyoming.”
In Utah, some Republicans are preparing legislation to exempt the state from federal gun laws — and fine any federal agents who try to seize guns. A bill in the Alaska House would make it a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce new restrictions on gun ownership.
While such proposals are eye-catching, they likely could never be implemented.
“The legislature can pass anything it wants,” said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. “The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.”
Kamin and other legal experts are also making a comparison that is sure to rile gun advocates. They are saying that this intense disdain of Obama’s proposals is reminiscent of former Confederate states’ refusal to comply with federal law extending equal rights for blacks after the Civil War.
A man fires an 22 Cal. look-alike AR-15 rifle at the ‘Get Some Guns & Ammo’ shooting range on January 15, 2013 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Credit: Getty Images
The National Sheriff’s Association has supported administration efforts to combat gun violence after the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings. President Larry Amerson, sheriff of Calhoun, Ala., said he understands the frustrations of people in rural areas with the federal government. But he feels his oath of office binds him to uphold all laws.
“Any sheriff who knows his duty knows we don’t enforce federal law, per se,” said Amerson, a longtime firearms instructor and hunter.
Some rural sheriffs view the federal government as an adversary, with gun ownership at the core of that belief.
In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate he felt violated constitutional rights.
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, based in Fredericksburg, Texas, encourages that point of view. Founder Richard Mack, a former sheriff of Apache County, Ariz., speaks regularly at gatherings of Tea Party groups and gun rights organizations.
“I will tell Mr. Obama and everybody else who wants to impose gun control in America, that whether you like it or not, it is against the law,” said Mack. “Now we have good sheriffs who are standing up and defending the law against our own president.”
These developments follow Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) pledge to propose legislation early next week to “nullify” President Barack Obama’s executive actions on guns.
–
Related:
In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.
Popular Stories
John McCain Lectures Tea Party Senator on How ‘Business’ Gets Done in Congress: ‘That’s What We’ve Been Doing for a Couple Hundred Years’ 597 Comments
Boy Scouts of America Vote to Allow Gay Members 522 Comments
Obama Doesn’t Return Marine’s Salute, Shakes Hand Instead — Is This a Protocol Misstep? 410 Comments
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor 341 Comments
‘We Ain’t Scared of Nobody!’: New Documentary Claims to Show the KKK Thriving in Deep South 298 Comments
Faith
-
Game-Changing Bombshell? There’s a Major Twist in the Story About a High School Student’s Lesbian Relationship With a Minor
341 Comments
- Is the Boy Scouts’ Gay Amendment the ‘Beginning of the End’ for the Group? (Plus: Tell Us Where You Stand) 296 Comments
-
MSNBC Hosts Martin Bashir and Chris Hayes Claim London Machete Killers Aren’t Terrorists: ‘These Are Just Murderers’
154 Comments
-
Did You Catch the Possibly Policy-Changing Ft. Hood Reference in Obama’s Terror Speech?
101 Comments
-
Dem. Rep. Apologizes for Attending ‘Racist, Anti-Semitic and Homophobic’ Speech
Read More
Business
-
Have You Had Scotch at a NJ TGI Friday’s Lately? You Might Have Been Drinking Rubbing Alcohol
Read More
-
Venezuelan President Blames Toilet Paper Shortage on the Rich
Read More
-
This Terrible Chart Shows the Change in Food Stamp Participation Over the Last 10 Years
Read More
- Disney Makes Absolutely Mortifying Photoshop Mistake Read More
-
Trey Gowdy at It Again — This Time with a Jack Bauer Reference!
117 Comments
Technology
-
LOOK: Woman Claims to Have Photographed UFO in California
Read More
-
Lion Named ‘Bonedigger’ and Small Dog Make Most Unlikely Companions
Read More
-
Rocket Bike Sets Land Speed Record — and Uses a Fuel You Wouldn’t Expect
Read More
-
How 3D Printing Technology Created a Special Part for Baby’s Windpipe and Saved His Life
Read More
-
6 Fascinating Spy Gadgets You’ll Probably Want (and Can Have) After Seeing
Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (97)
AUsername
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:40amWow to think our guns could likely be gone by now if Romney was president because people ignorantly think that a GOP president wouldn’t do anything to guns and therefore would be allot less outrage and resistance to it.
Report this comment
LetUsReason
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:17pmWhat are you ranting about? Also, next time make sure you spell “allot” correctly…..it just makes you look like you haven’t yet earned a GED.
Report this comment
encinom
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:33pmArrest the traitors that take NRA blood money and fail to do their duty and protect the citizens. How many tiny caskets do these sub humans want?
Report this comment
RabidPatriot
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:35pmYou should adjust your tinfoil hat or up your medication.
Report this comment
BrutalTruth
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 2:46pmEncinom, Where did you ever get the idea that the police were there to protect you?
Report this comment
American_Made
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 5:05pmBrutalTruth, His mama once told him that and like most liberal trash he now believes it as law.
Report this comment
turkey13
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 6:38pmIt will be based on whather the sheriff is uinion or non-union. If they are union they will probably advising the thugs that are cleaning out your house. They know it’s alright because you will turn in a claim and the insurence cmpany will pay off. Here in Oklahoma ours are non-union so they have to shoot them to get their bounty. Promotions are based on arrests and how many you shoot and save the tax payers money by not having to pay court cost and prison expenses..
Report this comment
lbesq
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:59pmencinom you are a troll. Go put your venom on the Current TV’s site. It fits you much better. Please be sure to tell them where you live.
Report this comment
Trigus
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:06pm@Auser – you are an idiot. We do not give a flying #### about party affiliation, or who is, or would have been president. We care about our Rights. The Rights our forefathers (boots on the ground 1670) have fought and died to defend. So, we can read comments from ilk like you.
Go back and crawl under the base board – the lights have been turned on and the Giant is awake.
Report this comment
bumpkin
Posted on January 18, 2013 at 9:45pmThe quote “most men would rather DIE than think”, applies here… Oh, what a Dum-Dum, chicken-little!
Report this comment
NicholasDL
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:33amThe day after the announcement, the people submit.
Over twenty executive orders will be signed, the people submit.
The government will employ technology over the citizenry that no State in the past has dreamt, the people submit.
The servants of the State, the police and the military, will be permitted arms denied the people, the people submit.
Physicians are turned against their patients as messengers to the State, the people submit.
The 2nd most important amendment is violated and no one acts but rather complains, acquiesces and submits.
To rebel and resist as a civilian citizenry against the government are not the aspirations of the insane; rather each is a Constitutional Right promoted and practiced by the Founders.
But if you submit, you do not deserve to be enslaved, you need to be enslaved.
right field
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:35amCorruption is the new law of the land. Each power grab is more outrageous and we are all frozen in inaction as the MSM and the elites move to take away more and more of our individual freedoms and dismantle the Constitution.
How do we peaceably resist? What can anyone do to counter the MSM lies and the Marxist in the White House and in the Senate?
What can the average citizen do now that our Constitution is defunct? There are no courts – most especially the Supreme Court – that will rule against the Marxist. The elected politicians, the judges, the bureaucrats are all elites and there is no way to resist or fight back without risking being thrown into jail or sued into bankruptcy.
Will local law enforcement and state government go along with the dictator’s edicts? Can we fight back when the Feds start arresting people? The courts will not act to defend our rights. The trial lawyers are all ‘lib Dems’ and support the tyranny.
Honest, law-abiding citizens are slaves to the elites and our system of government is completely corrupt. What can be done?
I fear the answer.
Silvertruth
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:56amOkay guys, did anyone actually READ what his executive directions were? None of them were new ‘laws’, they all centered around either stepping up current enforcement or getting more information or putting out more information. Nothing in the executive orders area was cause for alarm. I did find the one dealing with the interpretation of Obamacare’s rules rather interesting, basically saying he was going to defy his own precious laws rules. Hypocricy is fun to see when displayed nakedly (is that close to a Hiku?)
Anyway, when we gripe and moan about mild, legitimate uses of Executive Authority, it DOES make us look like radicals. Please, take a close look at the orders and take them at face value. We can tear them apart when we see the actual signed written orders, don’t hand wring now, be patient.
As far as the ‘bans’ go, do not surrender any kind of firearm no matter what they ‘ban’. If they can get a ban through congress (unlikely) then we have to fight with passive resistance until they fire the first shot. Nobody should die over a bunch of idiots that can just be unelected next cycle. That is giving them too much power and honestly, we aren’t to the point of violent uprising yet.
Calm down, laugh at the circus and use your voice for freedom and peace. Not freedom and violence because it makes us look bad as conservatives.
G-WHIZ
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:31amEXEC ORDERS ARE NOT IN OUR U.S.A.CONSTITUTION. What you need it to be 2000pages so you can read it?? Less than 30pages is way-too-hard to read for commies and *******!!
tonypro
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:12pm“urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.”
” Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.”
Maybe they should also research the true power a sheriff has, since many of them seem to ignore that.
Remember any law that is not constitutional is not a law.
HellboundandDown
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:57pm“If the reason you own guns is to respond to tyranny – you would have acted by now.”
-Max Keiser
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:15amOur local and state leaders need to stand strong!
Abraham Young
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:09amhttp://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/304/case.html
The Constitution is the work or will of the People themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the Legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the Creature. The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, gentlemen, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all Legislative, Executive and Judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the Legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, as absolutely void.
Report this comment
StormRider
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:01amSo Barry take your EO’s and shove them up your OA
Report this comment
blazetoo
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:50amI am just suprised that the guy still has ARs on the shelf. Ours are ALL sold out. Walmart is not ordering any more either
Report this comment
Frederick_Douglass_Republican
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:06amI’m glad wallys isn’t ordering them anymore. They’re cowards and let them do as cowards do. I just hope all the manufacturers are running three shifts a day at their factories rather than cowering themselves.
Report this comment
Grand design
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:45amI hope the local Sheriff’s can stand up to the threat of a tyrannical federal government!
Band together and win… For yourselves and the citizens you represent!
Report this comment
LameLiberals
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:44amJOIN OATH KEEPERS –
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
ATTENTION: Veterans, polite officers, fire fighters, EMTs and General Public Oath Keepers – will not obey 10 unconstitutional orders
JOIN OATH KEEPERS!!!!
Watch the American Flag video to right of the screen when after you click the web link below
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
Members pledge NOT to obey 10 UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDERS which they list.
FREEDOM is gender neutral.
Women, this is NOT a men’s club. There are Oath Keeper Chapeters in every state and some of them headed up by women.
FREEDOM is age neutral. FREEDOM does NOT have an age. Do something for your children and grandchildren – JOIN OATH KEEPERS!!!
Report this comment
LameLiberals
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:50amOath Keepers – will not obey any 10 Orders: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
1 To disarm American people
2 To conduct warrantless searches of American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects — such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.
3 To impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor
4 To impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor
5 To invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union
6 To blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7 To force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8 To assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.
9 To confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever
10 Orders which infringe on right of the people to free speech, to peacea
Report this comment
poorrichard09
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:45amRight on, bro! I’m a member.
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:17am“Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.”….If this is in fact true, Civil War is quickly approaching….
Report this comment
EllieR
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:50am@INDYGUY
“Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.”….If this is in fact true, Civil War is quickly approaching….
How ’bout legalizing pot and gay marriage? There is a conflict between state and federal law as well but our marxist ruler is in no hurry to enforce federal law.
@LAME…
#3 and #4 are identical, I guess you copy pasted it by mistake.
Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:13am@ EllieR……Your point???
Report this comment
EllieR
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:49amIndy, my point is the left make their “point” that the states can make any laws they want, the government could not care less because fed laws allegedly tramp state laws when it comes to gun control. But they are “respectful” when it comes to some other laws that contradict federal laws. The left are very selective in their interpretation of the law.
That being said, I agree that Civil War is to be expected.
Report this comment
schlepnier
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:42amSam kamen is only partialy right. the supremecy of the federal government only applies to those areas covered by articles 1-3 as inumerated powers anything else is the propriety of the states which is why the 10th ammendmant says-
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.
The federal goverment does not have supreme authority over powers it was never granted…like ignoring the bill of rights.
Report this comment
00100111
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:47am“The legislature can pass anything it wants,” said Sam Kamin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Denver. “The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes that clearly unconstitutional. Where there’s a conflict between state and federal law, the federal government is supreme.”
He’s welcome to enter the state and try to assert that statement at any time. We have an answer for him if he does.
Report this comment
jakartaman
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:41amIts not about hunting – The second amendments primary purpose and intent was to have a military civilian capability to aid the government in the time of crisis/war. It is also in the case that our own government becomes over reaching too big and tyrannical.
I would like to postulate that this bloated, over reaching progressive secular socialist Federal government is nearing the time when our forefathers would say – enough is enough! That’s why we have the 2nd amendment and now the very tyrannical government is trying to take our ability to remove those from power is who are tearing up our constitution – scary – keep all your guns – keep them clean and ready and have plenty of ammo!
Report this comment
spudwhite
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:37amImpeach the big O!
http://www.naturalnews.com/038706_Obama_gun_control_executive_orders.html
Report this comment
hauschild
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:17amSpoken like true Brown Shirts.
Report this comment
dcatkin
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:41amEvery state in this country should propose laws that nullify everything that Obama does. But since we can’t do that we can start with gun control, every state should push bck on this issue, We need to make Obama’s life miserable for evern thinking this crap.
Free Our Country
Report this comment
rangerskippy
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:13amhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyyWMoHOQPY
“Had the displeasure of watching our chief executive conduct a propaganda conference yesterday. Why our own president feels the need to grimace and make faces anytime he mentions the Constitution, Founding Fathers, or the Second Amendment, and feels the need to try and cover his mouth when he says he “doesn’t want to take your guns”, intrigues me.
If you have the opportunity to re-watch it, pay heed to the body language clearly displayed throughout. I would absolutely love to play some high-stakes poker with this fool. I would send his lying **** home with his pockets turned out……”
Notice that he says people can own guns for hunting, for sport, for collection, and protection, but never actually recognizes that the founding fathers recognized our right to bear arms, to protect us from a government gone out of control
Notice that he never mentions that he is going after rifles, and rifles were only used in 311 murders last year. More people committed murder with knives, clubs, and hammers, than they did with rifles.
Notice that he says nothing about the fact that 12.5% of the population in America is black, and that they currently do 1/2 of all murders. If we can lower black murder rates to the same as whites, we drop the national murder per capita rate by 40%, and save a whole lot of black lives.
Notice that 70% of our gun violence is gang related. Obama’s DOJ put “assault weapons” in the hands o
Report this comment
grimmster
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 11:55am@Rangerskippy.
Sorry,couldnt watch this more than 30 seconds without almost throwing up,but i will take your word for it.
Report this comment
BROBB549
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:11amThe oath of office for the President of the United States consists of a statement that I will defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. How many times has our President and our Attorney General said that they were NOT going to enforce the laws that they had sworn to uphold. There are laws that they will not let local law enforcement uphold, does ILLEGAL immigration ring a bell, so why should local law enforcement uphold these laws that Mr. Obama is shoving down our throats?
Report this comment
marybethelizabeth
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:27amYou are right. The President must uphold the Constitution
but
When Congressional legislation becomes law, it does not become part of the constitution.
Law enforcement requires resources.
The budget is only so big.
If you want the Federal government to act, don’t bellyache about paying the taxes that fund the resources for enforcement.
Report this comment
00100111
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:52amMary, any congressional law passed that does not meet Constitutional muster is no law at all. It is null and void on its face and is unenforceable, and We the People are under no obligation to obey it. It is unconstitutional immediately, not just when the SCOTUS says so. The congress does not have the authority to pass laws in contravention of the Constitution, nor does the president have the authority to enforce such a law as it is no law at all. If you believe otherwise, feel free to come try to enforce it, I’ll have a very loud answer for you.
Report this comment
ANTISOCIAL-IST
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 12:18pm@001: this.
Report this comment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:10am.
All we need to know is “Slaves Vote Democrat”………
I guess the Mexicans will start smuggling guns now…………….
Report this comment
SeekerEmerald
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:05amThe federal gov is NOT supreme over the states, even though that’s what MOST people may think. The states created the Federal. The federal is there to serve the states.
It’s walways funny how to left LOVES executive orders written by a lefty, but as soon as there is a righty in the chair, suddenly executive orders are an over-reach. They are NOT principled, they are idealistic. Any means to get to what they view as the correct end.
Report this comment
Mil-Dot
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:57amIf the law professor that says ‘the federal govt is supreme” thinks that we give a rat’s ass about ink on paper when it comes to our rights he is mistaken. Typical prog goon govt boot licker.
Report this comment
FightingBear
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:50amAt least we have some people willing to stand up for the Constitution. Our White House resident certainly isn’t concerned about trampling all over it.
There is a mad-man in the White House folks ….and he is out to destroy us….sadly he is doing a damned good job of it
Be ready patriots….it is all going to come to a head very soon. Stay vigilant and be ready!
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:03amThis is precisely why we must Impeach and De-fund the White House. They are trampling on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:44amIs anyone else having issues with the new “submit button” and posting?
Report this comment
ares338
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:07amYep…I sure am.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:12amares338
Could you explain the issues? I’m trying figure this out. TIA
Report this comment
Red Meat
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:16amThis software is prehistoric. No review nor edit feature. Leave it to Beck to implement something from the 70′s. FAIL.
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:22am@Red Meat,
As usual… you’re no help at all. Congratulations !!!
Report this comment
GuruMeditation
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 9:48amYes, and regularly. It’s been going on for several days.
Report this comment
Coyote1953
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:42amPresidential executive orders are not LAWS
Report this comment
Wolf
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:17am“…John Jackson, co-owner of Capitol City Arms Supply shows off an AR-15 assault rifle for sale Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013 at his business in Springfield, Ill. Credit: AP…” (from the photo caption)
When is the Blaze going to learn that just because a rifle LOOKS like an ‘assault rifle’ does not MAKE it an ‘assault rifle’? Nothing like adding to the problems we’re having with know-nothing sheeple.
As for the sheriffs not enforcing the Obambi laws, the County Sheriff is an elected position and the most pwerful LEO in a state. They, like any of us, can refuse to enforce or follow any laws contrary the Constitution and our unalienable rights.
Report this comment
Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 10:03amFrom the Armed Forces History Museum:
“The United States M16 assault rifle was designed in 1956…” An AR15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle.
Blaze writers and editors, please at least once, get it right. You are singing the liberals’ narrative. Call AR15 semi-automatic scary looking rifles if you must. Just don’t call it an assault rifle.
Report this comment
ferggie
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:36amI sick of hearing the left run off at the mouth that we as gun holders do not need an AR. They feel we can protect ourselves and hunt with other types of guns so it is perfectly legal to outlaw AR’s. The left continues to state that nothing in the constitution says we have the right to these types of guns or magazine sizes so by omission they can outlaw them. Let me say I do not own an AR but believe it is my right to own one if I so choose.
I guess if that is there basis for the constitutionality of gun bans then I assume they are in favor of outlawing any and all violent video games and movies. The same material can and often is available in books so there is no need to have it in video and movies correct? I would guess the same holds for the 1st amendment as does with the 2nd with regard to the constitutionality of this. I see nowhere in the constitution the right to violent movies or videos and since the same material can be printed in books it would not be obstructing the freedom of speech or am I wrong. The left had better be careful when they attempt to destroy the 2nd amendment because without it there will be no 1st.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:27amthe only option for fixing this problem is for the states to unite and nullify washington….But i heard glenn beck on the radio yesterday telling everyone NOT TO MARCH AT YOUR STATE CAPITAL…what!?!?!?
Report this comment
The-Monk
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:27amMilitary “style” weapons are not military weapons.
Time to end “stylish” fantasies and get back to reality.
Report this comment
Uechi
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:20amNote that the annointed one said military style assault weapons not rifles. His vague description starting with military style means he could lump in semi-auto shotguns and pistols not just rifles. Rifles would be bad enough with this languge you are left with bolt action rifles and revolvers. Do not trust anything thispiece of garbage says or does he is about destroying the Constitution and taking away you liberties
Report this comment
kaydeebeau
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:17amThe Supremacy of the Federal government is not valid if the laws attempted are unconsitutional – ……shall not be infringed …..is pretty self evident
Report this comment
qpwillie
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:31amYep, “shall not be infringed” leaves no room for interpretation.
Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:42amhow come there is no background check for freedom of speech?
how come freedom of religion includes ALL religions, not just the ones the government allows?
Gun control makes no sense from a constitutional perspective
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 8:00am@Soy
Aye, it would be fantastic is a group could raise the cash to hire lawyers to challenge these kinds of things on the same grounds that people use to challenge preemption of rights like speech and voting (though, frankly, voting isn’t really a right, but you get what I’m saying).
Report this comment
Warphead
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:16amObama’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment amounts to 1 pistol per household made exclusively of petroleum products (hard plastic) with a capacity of no more than 2 ounces consisting of H2O only with a range no greater than 10 feet.
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:27amAh, a chemical weapon! A dihydroxyoxide propelling hydraulic-action arm!
Report this comment
biohazard23
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:28amNERF guns are forbidden? Ruh-roh, Shaggy. Toys R Us is gonna be in some serious trouble…..
Report this comment
Lee_in_PA
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:32amWonder how long it would hold up with some strong chemicals in it?
Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 17, 2013 at 7:48am@Lee_In_PA
Don’t need strong chemicals, most of what remains of the “Left” these days are quite easily dispatched with holy water. If you have a priest you can trust to bless you a batch, it’s like having your own anti-Left WMD. :)
Report this comment