If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The News & Observer (NC))   The good news: North Carolina GOP give up on their bill to give a big middle finger to the 1st amendment. The bad news: North Carolina GOP proposes bill to make exempt from any Federal law guns and ammo made in NC   (projects.newsobserver.com) divider line 135
    More: Stupid, North Carolina GOP, North Carolina, 1st amendment, GOP, federal law, special agents  
•       •       •

1805 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Apr 2013 at 6:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-04 05:32:31 PM
I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?
 
2013-04-04 05:49:49 PM

Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?


Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.
 
2013-04-04 06:03:47 PM

GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.


This may actually hold water. I'd like to see it argued within the context of US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison
 
2013-04-04 06:12:16 PM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

This may actually hold water. I'd like to see it argued within the context of US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison


No, it doesn't.  Federal law supersedes all, and in this case, not only is the Nullification Crisis proof you're wrong, but the Commerce Clause too.  This is physical commerce.  This isn't a gun free zone or the Violence Against Women Act.  It is commerce.  Commerce clause applies, and even if it didn't, Federal laws categorically cannot be overrode by state, county, city, township or any other kind of local law.
 
2013-04-04 06:13:39 PM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

This may actually hold water. I'd like to see it argued within the context of US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison


Montana did basically the same thing, and they've been getting slapped down by the Federal courts so far.
 
2013-04-04 06:14:15 PM
Pennsylvania's leading Legislatard is pushing a similar bill: House Bill, yes, 357.
 
2013-04-04 06:16:37 PM
This is what happens when you elect complete nutjobs to the state legislature and they have no clue what "Constitutional" means.
 
2013-04-04 06:17:36 PM
The best that Georgia ever looked was when Grant left Atlanta.  Does America have to saddle up and teach North Carolina the same lesson?
 
2013-04-04 06:18:33 PM
I thought the Civil War settled this. It was essentially over the idea that the South thought Federal laws don't overrule State laws.

Of course they could be going for starting a new Civil War.
 
2013-04-04 06:19:19 PM

Great_Milenko: The best that Georgia ever looked was when Grant left Atlanta.  Does America have to saddle up and teach North Carolina the same lesson?


www.sfmuseum.net
General Sherman frowns on your shenanigans.
 
2013-04-04 06:20:47 PM
You'd think lawmakers would know that you can't cherry-pick what parts of Federal law and Constitution they obey.
 
2013-04-04 06:23:22 PM
I'm sure the Fark gun nuts will have a huge problem with this blatantly unconstitutional bill.
 
2013-04-04 06:23:39 PM

GAT_00: but the Commerce Clause too.


If it is like Montana's law, the law would only apply to guns/ammo produced and kept within state borders, thereby bypassing the Commerce Clause.
 
2013-04-04 06:23:39 PM
It would exempt from all federal regulations any firearm, accessory or ammunition made and kept in North Carolina.
A gun like that would have to be stamped with "Made in North Carolina."


Read more here: http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/made_in_nc_gun_bill_w o uld_make_it_a_crime_for_federal_agents_to_enforce_the_law#storylink=cp y
I truly doubt any ammunition manufacturer is going to retool so they can stamp that on every shell casing.
 
2013-04-04 06:24:43 PM
Step 1: Manufacture machine guns.
Step 2: Sell to everyone, including felons.
Step 3: Profit.
 
2013-04-04 06:24:57 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Great_Milenko: The best that Georgia ever looked was when Grant left Atlanta.  Does America have to saddle up and teach North Carolina the same lesson?

[www.sfmuseum.net image 324x408]
General Sherman frowns on your shenanigans.


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2013-04-04 06:25:49 PM

HeadLever: GAT_00: but the Commerce Clause too.

If it is like Montana's law, the law would only apply to guns/ammo produced and kept within state borders, thereby bypassing the Commerce Clause.


And no court has called that legal.  What's more, it is impossible to prove that those products will never leave the state.
 
2013-04-04 06:26:01 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

This may actually hold water. I'd like to see it argued within the context of US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison

No, it doesn't.  Federal law supersedes all, and in this case, not only is the Nullification Crisis proof you're wrong, but the Commerce Clause too.  This is physical commerce.  This isn't a gun free zone or the Violence Against Women Act.  It is commerce.  Commerce clause applies, and even if it didn't, Federal laws categorically cannot be overrode by state, county, city, township or any other kind of local law.


Their theory is that if the items are manufacturer, sold, and stay within the borders of a single state then the commerce clause won't apply because it limited to commerce between foreign nations, several states, and Indian tribes.

Which would by the way, mean that those weapons would also have to be prohibited from any Indian reservations inside North Carolina.
 
2013-04-04 06:26:52 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Great_Milenko: The best that Georgia ever looked was when Grant left Atlanta.  Does America have to saddle up and teach North Carolina the same lesson?

[www.sfmuseum.net image 324x408]
General Sherman frowns on your shenanigans.


idgi
 
2013-04-04 06:27:20 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

This may actually hold water. I'd like to see it argued within the context of US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison

No, it doesn't.  Federal law supersedes all, and in this case, not only is the Nullification Crisis proof you're wrong, but the Commerce Clause too.  This is physical commerce.  This isn't a gun free zone or the Violence Against Women Act.  It is commerce.  Commerce clause applies, and even if it didn't, Federal laws categorically cannot be overrode by state, county, city, township or any other kind of local law.


As for purchasing, you would probably be correct. But possession is another story. Mere possession of a gun is not commerce in any form as defined by Lopez. The entire thing will likely be struck down, but I would like to read the published opinion and dissent when it is.

PDF of the bill is here  http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H518v1.pdf
 
2013-04-04 06:30:09 PM

GAT_00: HeadLever: GAT_00: but the Commerce Clause too.

If it is like Montana's law, the law would only apply to guns/ammo produced and kept within state borders, thereby bypassing the Commerce Clause.

And no court has called that legal.  What's more, it is impossible to prove that those products will never leave the state.


Hey, no one ever said it was legal.  We're just repeating their hairbrained ideas.
And besides, these are the types of idiots who pass anti-abortion laws not to prevent abortions, but for the sole purpose of challenging the ruling that legalized it.  Why would they be intimidated by something that, while the a court hasn't said is ok to do, also hasn't said is NOT ok?
 
2013-04-04 06:31:26 PM
In other news, another successful attempt by a Southern State to make the concept of States Rights appear ti be a bunch of stupid selfish petty bullshiat.
 
2013-04-04 06:31:45 PM

GAT_00: And no court has called that legal.


they are trying to get it up to the SCOTUS by intentionally losing at the 9th Circuit court.  Interesting case to say the least.
 
2013-04-04 06:32:16 PM

GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.


Except marijuana laws.

/amirite?
 
2013-04-04 06:32:35 PM

ArkAngel: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

This may actually hold water. I'd like to see it argued within the context of US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison


It would seem to me that Wickard v Fillburn would be the relevant precedent.  Even though such a law wouldn't restrict interstate commerce, its impact would still alter the nature of interstate trade and thus would run afoul of the Commerce Clause.  Morrison certainly set the limit of what the Commerce clause can be used to justify inasmuch as the mere threat of an action which might affect commerce was found to be insufficient to justify Congressional action, but this law would actively impact interstate commerce.
 
2013-04-04 06:34:51 PM

Karac: Their theory is that if the items are manufacturer, sold, and stay within the borders of a single state then the commerce clause won't apply because it limited to commerce between foreign nations, several states, and Indian tribes.


Hah, you just missed my comment on that.  I cannot imagine how it is possible to prove that the guns or bullets will never leave the state.

ArkAngel: As for purchasing, you would probably be correct. But possession is another story. Mere possession of a gun is not commerce in any form as defined by Lopez. The entire thing will likely be struck down, but I would like to read the published opinion and dissent when it is.


Oh short read.  Ok then.

Wait, it's still the same thing.  Manufactured in state, but there's no way to actually keep it from ever leaving the state.  How would you enforce that?

And it still says (I'd post the specific text but that will not copy right) that any Federal agent who attempts to enforce a Federal law is guilty of a crime.  You can't farking do that!  That is categorically not legal in any sense of the law, ever!  This is the Nullification Crisis.  We solved this 190 farking years ago, and conservatives STILL haven't farking got it!

I cannot understand how it is possible to be that stupid.
 
2013-04-04 06:35:35 PM

GAT_00: What's more, it is impossible to prove that those products will never leave the state.


That is not necessarily the test for being subjected to the Commerce Clause.   To be technical, it needs to be weighted against the Necessary and Proper Clause.
 
2013-04-04 06:35:52 PM

HeadLever: intentionally losing at the 9th Circuit court.


So why would the USSC ever take it if they can't be bothered to defend it?
 
2013-04-04 06:36:10 PM

bighairyguy: You'd think lawmakers would know that you can't cherry-pick what parts of Federal law and Constitution they obey.


If they knew this, do you think they would be elected in the first place?
 
2013-04-04 06:38:22 PM

AbsentFriends: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

Except marijuana laws.

/amirite?


States are absolutely free to say that marijuana is not illegal under state law. That does not change and has not changed the fact that it's illegal under federal law. No state has attempted to make the enforcement of federal marijuana laws a crime within their borders. As soon as one does, I will state that laws don't work that way, just as they do not work that way when applied to guns.
 
2013-04-04 06:39:07 PM

HeadLever: GAT_00: What's more, it is impossible to prove that those products will never leave the state.

That is not necessarily the test for being subjected to the Commerce Clause.   To be technical, it needs to be weighted against the Necessary and Proper Clause.


But for the Commerce Clause to not apply, you have to categorically show that it could not apply, that interstate commerce could not apply in any way.  You can't show that.  It's impossible.

Well, I guess you could, but you'd have to have a national database that tracks the sale of every single gun.  Then if it was sold out of state, it would be stopped.  Ammunition too.

Would you like that?
 
2013-04-04 06:39:54 PM

thurstonxhowell: AbsentFriends: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

Except marijuana laws.

/amirite?

States are absolutely free to say that marijuana is not illegal under state law. That does not change and has not changed the fact that it's illegal under federal law. No state has attempted to make the enforcement of federal marijuana laws a crime within their borders. As soon as one does, I will state that laws don't work that way, just as they do not work that way when applied to guns.


And it would still be a Federal crime to produce it to sell out of state, wouldn't it?
 
2013-04-04 06:40:06 PM
Even if the law is ineffective, it certainly is "fell good" legislation, just like all those ineffective anti-gun laws that they're passing in liberal states.  Gun-respecting people got a right to feel good too.
 
2013-04-04 06:42:56 PM

GAT_00: So why would the USSC ever take it if they can't be bothered to defend it?


No one ever said they would not defend it at the SC level.
 
2013-04-04 06:43:30 PM

SkinnyHead: fell good


Skinny fell good.  He has lots of fells.
 
2013-04-04 06:43:34 PM
look, we already had a a war over this, you lost, suck it up and get with the program
 
2013-04-04 06:44:16 PM

GAT_00: But for the Commerce Clause to not apply, you have to categorically show that it could not apply, that interstate commerce could not apply in any way. You can't show that. It's impossible.


Um, no you don't.
 
2013-04-04 06:44:27 PM

HeadLever: GAT_00: So why would the USSC ever take it if they can't be bothered to defend it?

No one ever said they would not defend it at the SC level.


But why would the USSC take a case where the state would not defend it at every level?
 
2013-04-04 06:45:09 PM

HeadLever: GAT_00: But for the Commerce Clause to not apply, you have to categorically show that it could not apply, that interstate commerce could not apply in any way. You can't show that. It's impossible.

Um, no you don't.


Yes, you do.  For CC to not apply, you must prove Intrastate Commerce can only apply.  Just because you want things to work that way doesn't mean they do.
 
2013-04-04 06:47:10 PM

GAT_00: But why would the USSC take a case where the state would not defend it at every level?


Because it is their intent to get the case in front of the USSC.
 
2013-04-04 06:47:22 PM
Fantasta Potamus: I thought the Civil War settled this. It was essentially over the idea that the South thought Federal laws don't overrule State laws.

Yes, conservatives are trying to bring back old, always rejected extremist doctrines of states' rights. In various states, they are now enacting laws similar to those laws prior to the Civil War purporting in one way or another to render federal law unenforcable in their jurisdictions. These doctrines were rejected as extremist then, and they are only more extremist now.

Conservatives would have us believe it's just coincidental all these neo-Confederate doctrines are being resurrected under America's first black President. The Confederate flags which went up in windows and on bumper stickers days after Obama's first election suggest otherwise. Nonetheless, Conservative Correct thought thugs have dictated that we're no longer allowed to call conservatives racist.

So let me point out instead that you cannot have a nation when local jurisdictions can overrule federal law at will. Therefore, the singular, objectively indisputable and fully conscious goal of those resurrecting these doctrines is nothing less than to destroy America. Those who adhere to them are enemies of the republic, are not patriots, and do not deserve to be considered citizens. Those who support laws like these laws literally (see this also) wipe their asses with the American flag every day of their lives.

But let me assure you, I in no way insinuate they're racists.
 
2013-04-04 06:47:23 PM

GAT_00: ArkAngel: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: I thought this was supposed to be South Carolina's schtick?

Lately the entire GOP has picked it up.  They're not just wrong, they're 190 YEARS wrong.

Nullification Crisis you retarded farkers.  LAWS DON'T WORK LIKE THAT.

This may actually hold water. I'd like to see it argued within the context of US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison

No, it doesn't.  Federal law supersedes all, and in this case, not only is the Nullification Crisis proof you're wrong, but the Commerce Clause too.  This is physical commerce.  This isn't a gun free zone or the Violence Against Women Act.  It is commerce.  Commerce clause applies, and even if it didn't, Federal laws categorically cannot be overrode by state, county, city, township or any other kind of local law.



So you believe that all States with medical marijuana laws, and ESPECIALLY Colorado and Washington are guilty of sedition?
 
2013-04-04 06:47:59 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Great_Milenko: The best that Georgia ever looked was when Grant left Atlanta.  Does America have to saddle up and teach North Carolina the same lesson?

[www.sfmuseum.net image 324x408]
General Sherman frowns on your shenanigans.


Meh, same thing.  Same result.
 
2013-04-04 06:48:23 PM

HeadLever: GAT_00: but the Commerce Clause too.

If it is like Montana's law, the law would only apply to guns/ammo produced and kept within state borders, thereby bypassing the Commerce Clause.



NOTHING can bypass the Commerce Clause.

NOTHING.
 
2013-04-04 06:50:10 PM

Amos Quito: So you believe that all States with medical marijuana laws, and ESPECIALLY Colorado and Washington are guilty of sedition?


I'm actually not convinced those laws are legal.  I'm sure the challenges are in the works.

HeadLever: GAT_00: But why would the USSC take a case where the state would not defend it at every level?

Because it is their intent to get the case in front of the USSC.


And you don't get to just half-ass it to get there.
 
2013-04-04 06:51:57 PM

GAT_00: Yes, you do.


Nope.  again, you have to consider it against the Necessary and Proper clause, which this case is trying to show.

Make sure you keep the blinder on though.  Gotta keep your troll cred up.
 
2013-04-04 06:52:16 PM

GAT_00: Karac: Their theory is that if the items are manufacturer, sold, and stay within the borders of a single state then the commerce clause won't apply because it limited to commerce between foreign nations, several states, and Indian tribes.

Hah, you just missed my comment on that.  I cannot imagine how it is possible to prove that the guns or bullets will never leave the state.

ArkAngel: As for purchasing, you would probably be correct. But possession is another story. Mere possession of a gun is not commerce in any form as defined by Lopez. The entire thing will likely be struck down, but I would like to read the published opinion and dissent when it is.

Oh short read.  Ok then.

Wait, it's still the same thing.  Manufactured in state, but there's no way to actually keep it from ever leaving the state.  How would you enforce that?

And it still says (I'd post the specific text but that will not copy right) that any Federal agent who attempts to enforce a Federal law is guilty of a crime. You can't farking do that!  That is categorically not legal in any sense of the law, ever!  This is the Nullification Crisis.  We solved this 190 farking years ago, and conservatives STILL haven't farking got it!

I cannot understand how it is possible to be that stupid.


Yes this part is incredibly stupid. It would be eliminated under In Re Neagle.
 
2013-04-04 06:52:26 PM
II A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

X 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.


/Suck it, Authoritarians
 
2013-04-04 06:52:36 PM

GAT_00: And you don't get to just half-ass it to get there.


We will see, won't we?
 
2013-04-04 06:53:29 PM

Amos Quito: So you believe that all States with medical marijuana laws, and ESPECIALLY Colorado and Washington are guilty of sedition?


Read the thread, moron. No state that has legalized marijuana has said that Federal laws don't apply anymore, they're simply declaring it no longer illegal under state law. The Feds can still come in and bust pot smokers all they want, they've just been choosing (mostly) not to.

Whereas this law very specifically says that Federal law no longer applies in the state, and it will get laughed at by every court that hears it.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report