oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Kansas led off and now Missouri is going after Obama, Schumer, Feinstein and Reid in order to protect the 2nd Amendment and using nullification to declare the 10th Amendment also applies to the states. Holder really ought to have a ball with this one.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/05/missouri-legislature-nullifies-all-federal-gun-control/

grazeem Loc: Arizona

They can do what they want, but federal laws will always trump state laws.

Ask Arizona how well they did with the imagration bill 1080, if you don't believe me.

mach1

constitutional laws apply. the fed govt is way beyond its constitutional authority on alot of things. the states standing up for their constitutional rights is absolutely the right thing to do.

grazeem Loc: Arizona

That will be for the courts to decide, as it was for 1080. It was all thrown out, because federal law trumped state law.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Actually only parts of it were thrown. The parts that, in fact, related to Federal Law and ICE were upheld with the mandate that ICE perform.

Selective reading of court opinions does not reflect well on you.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Actually an understanding on how nullification works would benefit you.

grazeem Loc: Arizona

Well in reality the "Whole" law wasn't nullified, just the "important" parts. (Important parts to you, that is.)

The part that's left is just stuff.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

You hope to see the 10th Amendment destroyed along with the 2nd and maybe your kind can get it done.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

It doesn't reflect on any leaners but they all keep trying.

grazeem Loc: Arizona

Old roy,

That's how a federation works.

We have a "Federal" system.

lightfoot

grazeem..It appears that you enjoy watching the constitution being altered,why is that? What makes you think that the states do not have the right to decide how their particular citizens are governed .At some point if all states decide that fed gun laws are to restrictive i think the fed will be in a little trouble..We have a constitutional government for a reason.And one of those reasons is to keep the executive branch of government in check..We are all very aware that Obama would love to confiscate every firearm in America and put them in his own little gun safe but sorry grazeem it is not going to happen ..This is a major tipping point in his administration that will not get approved..He cannot even get background checks let alone try and enforce more restrictive laws ..According to FBI statistics gun crimes are down 69% in the last 18years and gun homicides are down 49% doesnt it appear to be kind of an odd time to make gun control a major issue in your agenda..Newtown was a terrible tragedy as is any other murder of innocent people but lets get real background checks and smaller magazines and elimination of assault weapons will not prevent further violence in this country..Obama knows it and so do all the rest of his OFA CREW

grazeem Loc: Arizona

And all that's very nice,

but we still have a Fedaral system, where federal law will trump state law.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

When will you and your kind repeal the 10th Amendment? Will it be soon or after Obama gets all the guns and ammo rounded up?

grazeem Loc: Arizona

Well old roy, I was trying to ignore you, but you seem to want to play.

The 10th amendment reserves the rights of the states for everything not spelled out in the constitution.

That has nothing to do with the way the federal system trumps the state in their laws. Once the Feds, decide to do something, they take precedence.

And where you guys got the idea that Obama was collecting guns, God knows. You watch to much Fox so called News.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Nice try but lets look at the actual words of the 10th Amendment
just for kicks.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, no prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Somehow it appears that you don't seem to have ever read these words, but you sure talk the progressive talk pretty good about it.