Comments on: Montana’s gun-rights supporters are ignoring the Constitution in misguided attempts to protect it

By: danielreyes

danielreyes — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:12:07 +0000

Here's your secret sauce, courtesy the Congressional Research Office:

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has established Congress’s constitutional authority to enact the existing federal prohibition on marijuana, principles of federalism prevent the federal government from mandating that the states actively support or participate in enforcing the federal law. While state resources may be helpful in combating the illegal use of marijuana, Congress’s ability to compel the states to enact similar criminal prohibitions, to repeal medical marijuana exemptions, or to direct state police officers to enforce the federal law remains limited by the Tenth Amendment.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42398.pdf Change gun control for marijuana.

By: chemman

chemman — Sun, 24 Feb 2013 00:46:50 +0000

There will always be caveats to any constitutional language.

Revenant on February 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Caveats exist because the people have been willing to go along with then because of the illusion they will provide personal peace (security) and affluence. Sorry but giving up degrees of freedom for illusions only give you loss of freedoms.

By: sharrukin

sharrukin — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:28:56 +0000

There will always be caveats to any constitutional language.

Revenant on February 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM

It has gone well beyond any reasonable measure and most of us didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. When leftists tell us they want to ban guns we take them at their word.

Dianne Feinstein: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them…

Iowa, state Rep. Dan Muhlbauer said governments should start confiscating semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.

Jesse Jackson was one of the few willing to come out and say he wants to ban all guns except bolt-action rifles, shotguns and revolvers.

By: Tripwhipper

Tripwhipper — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:26:46 +0000

When it comes to the Second Amendment, plenary natural rights that supersede the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those words have meaning. The people have a right to ignore governments that infringe these rights.

By: FlareCorran

FlareCorran — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:25:28 +0000

You might be wondering how all these initiatives square with the Supremacy Clause, which states that enforceable statutes passed by the federal government trump all conflicting state laws, with the Supreme Court having the final word on the constitutionality of state laws.

Nope, I can read just fine.

By: Old Country Boy

Old Country Boy — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:22:16 +0000

The problem with the political libruls is they have no idea or understanding of how far they can go. These morons, with constitutencies in the big city slums, think that they can force the rest, and most, of the country to live with the libruls in charge as an aristocracy, and the rest of us as their serfs. They have no concept of lines in the sand. What difference does it make (to quote a famous librul female politician) to these thugs in washington and the other big cities how we choose to live, within what we recall are the words of The Constitution. I would think it would be better for this country to keep these federuble agents out of areas where the agents might not return if they go there uninvited versus 200 million people of this country arising and disciplining the 100 million takers in NY, wash, chi, etc. Or maybe these libruls should keep it up and force this country to undergo mitosis.

By: Revenant

Revenant — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:18:22 +0000

There will always be caveats to any constitutional language. “Shall not be infringed” would be interpreted to allow some kind of government regulation, especially in regard to military weapons.

Think of the First Amendment — “Congress shall pass no law . . . .” Of course, despite the “no law” language, the amendment has been interpreted to allow for restrictions on the freedom of speech (even the founding generation did so with the Alien and Sedition act)

It is difficult to imagine how one could establish an absolute ban on government authority vis a vis the people that would not be interpreted by the SCOTUS as allowing for some kind of exception.

By: ThePrimordialOrderedPair

ThePrimordialOrderedPair — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:16:38 +0000

You might be wondering how all these initiatives square with the Supremacy Clause,

Not at all. I see how they are consistent with the 2nd amendment’s directive “shall not be infringed”. The States are protecting their citizenry against a feral government that is out of control and far overstepping its Constitutional bounds – which is the States’ responsibility to their citizenries.

The feral government is just a different arm of government, as per our Constitution, not some sort of superstate, all-empowered, all-knowing government that lords over everything.

By: rogerb

rogerb — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:13:10 +0000

It's neat to think how the current DOJ will simultaneously argue for the out-of-thin-air Constitutionality of gay marriage and against the written-down Constitutionality of firearms ownership.

By: RadClown

RadClown — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:09:12 +0000

I suppose that some state governments have decided that if the federal government won’t abide by the Constitution, why should they?

And the march toward a showdown with our would-be tyrannical class continues…

Aitch748 on February 23, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Exactly. This guy apparently believes the Federal Government can do anything it wants as long as nine lawyers in black say it’s OK. Well, they can’t, and they’ve been slowly shredding the Constitution for a while. Supremacy Clause? I’ll show you some supremacy.