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.

This is what happens when you elect complete nutjobs to the state legislature and they have no clue what "Constitutional" means.

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

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.

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?


General Sherman frowns on your shenanigans.

I'm sure the Fark gun nuts will have a huge problem with this blatantly unconstitutional bill.

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.

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.

Step 1: Manufacture machine guns.
Step 2: Sell to everyone, including felons.
Step 3: Profit.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

look, we already had a a war over this, you lost, suck it up and get with the program

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

We will see, won't we?

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.