• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Gov. Walker Responds To Firearms Freedom Act

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
I see. You would be happy when the Feinstien gun ban bill passes and is signed into law. You would be happy if the Feds told you that you can only grow so much wheat for yourself or that you can only earn so much money because you don't need to lead an extravagant life. The constitution be dammed. Yes?

And this exchange between comrade Feinstien and Ted Cruz on the assault weapons ban is the point I was trying to make:Senators Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein during a Senate Judiciary Hearing on Thursday got into heated exchange while discussing the California congresswoman’s proposed ban on so-called “assault” weapons.

“The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is,” Cruz said, referring to Feinstein, “Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?”

“Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” he added.

Apparently, Sen. Feinstein was not amused with the Texas senator’s line of questioning.
 

Old Grump

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
387
Location
Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
Has such a bill even been introduced? Who are the sponsors? What do you expect the governor to do? Even if he were a strong proponent, he could not force such legislation. And what if such an act became law? Immediate filing in a federal district court, an injunction or summary decision against the law. Many taxpayer $ spent to give a few folks a small thrill. Ever if the act were limited to purely intrastate activity you would still have to get SCOTUS approval in the end. Shouldn't the governor/attorney general be smart with public funds? Without (maybe even with) SCOTUS approbation, any attempt to interfere with federal law enforcement or disregard federal law would just result in arrest and other bad things. In the end, only a sea change in public attitude could implement this theory. Now maybe some courageous folks could be the lunch counter sitters of the movement and in 15-20 years, this concept will become mainstream. Meanwhile, that's big bucks in legal fees, a lot of bloody heads and incarcerations. So who's up first?

You do know that Federal law is not Holy Writ. If it is bad law we have an obligation to contest it and failure to do so is another nail in the coffin holding our freedoms. To blindly follow the law just because a congress and a president made it law does not make it legal if it isn't constitutional. If you don't fight it you lend weight to it by adhering to the dictates of a congress run amok. I believe congress needs to be held on a short leash and the tools are in the 7 articles and 27 amendments of the constitution. We need gutsy people at the local and state level knowing what is right and to have the guts to say this wrong and we will not comply. It's the brain dead liberals who drive up the cost of litigation defending bad laws because they are their laws they wanted in order to control the citizens and this citizen objects strenuously to being controlled.
 

Law abider

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
1,164
Location
Ellsworth Wisconsin
You do know that Federal law is not Holy Writ. If it is bad law we have an obligation to contest it and failure to do so is another nail in the coffin holding our freedoms. To blindly follow the law just because a congress and a president made it law does not make it legal if it isn't constitutional. If you don't fight it you lend weight to it by adhering to the dictates of a congress run amok. I believe congress needs to be held on a short leash and the tools are in the 7 articles and 27 amendments of the constitution. We need gutsy people at the local and state level knowing what is right and to have the guts to say this wrong and we will not comply. It's the brain dead liberals who drive up the cost of litigation defending bad laws because they are their laws they wanted in order to control the citizens and this citizen objects strenuously to being controlled.

AMEN!!!! Thank you brother!
Guns and wheat have only one thing in common unconstitutional federal laws denying you both!!
 
Last edited:

rickrich

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
33
Location
, ,
Dear Governor Walker,

The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers
 

Attachments

  • walkerclause.jpg
    walkerclause.jpg
    64.5 KB · Views: 93

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,157
Location
, ,
Devil in the Details

The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers

1. Who determines what is or is not a "constitutionally authorized power"?

2. Who determines if Congress is or is not acting in pursuit of a CAP?

Hint: It is neither you nor I.
 

E6chevron

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
528
Location
Milwaukee Wisconsin
And this exchange between comrade Feinstein and Ted Cruz on the assault weapons ban...

Law Abider,

Thank you for the excellent quote from U.S. Sen. Cruz to U.S. Sen. Feinstein.

It is also interesting, how silent the American Civil Liberties Union is on these 2nd Amendment liberties. They have fought against violations of rights in the past, even though, the majority of voters were okay with those violations.

Such as racial discrimination, Overly restrictive voting requirements, and recently, sexual orientation rights.

Their own website talks about their stance on 2nd amendment rights:
http://www.aclu.org/blog/organization-news-and-highlights/heller-decision-and-second-amendment

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.
 

randian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
380
Location
Phoenix, AZ
It is also interesting, how silent the American Civil Liberties Union is on these 2nd Amendment liberties. They have fought against violations of rights in the past, even though, the majority of voters were okay with those violations.
ACLU are a bunch of leftists, so their view of rights is rather selective. Note how they "interpret" the 2A not to be an individual right. Only a brain-dead moron with no knowledge of the construction of English sentences could come to that conclusion. That, or a mendacious propagandist.
 
Top