TexasCHLforum.com

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... nors-desk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alaska’s HB69, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, had it’s third reading in the senate last night, April 10th, and passed with a 17-3 vote. It returned to the house this morning, where they voted 34-5 to concur with the Senate version. The bill will be transmitted to Governor Parnell’s desk.

If Parnell signs it into law, it would nullify a large swath of unconstitutional federal power over the right to keep and bear arms. It begins with the premise that violations of the 2nd Amendment are not law at all

C'mon Texas! Let's follow suit!

APynckel wrote:http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... nors-desk/

Alaska’s HB69, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, had it’s third reading in the senate last night, April 10th, and passed with a 17-3 vote. It returned to the house this morning, where they voted 34-5 to concur with the Senate version. The bill will be transmitted to Governor Parnell’s desk.

If Parnell signs it into law, it would nullify a large swath of unconstitutional federal power over the right to keep and bear arms. It begins with the premise that violations of the 2nd Amendment are not law at all

C'mon Texas! Let's follow suit!

Federal law would trump local law, All what states can do is not to enforce or corporate with Feds in their investigations.

Beiruty wrote:

APynckel wrote:http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... nors-desk/

Alaska’s HB69, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, had it’s third reading in the senate last night, April 10th, and passed with a 17-3 vote. It returned to the house this morning, where they voted 34-5 to concur with the Senate version. The bill will be transmitted to Governor Parnell’s desk.

If Parnell signs it into law, it would nullify a large swath of unconstitutional federal power over the right to keep and bear arms. It begins with the premise that violations of the 2nd Amendment are not law at all

C'mon Texas! Let's follow suit!

Federal law would trump local law, All what states can do is not to enforce or corporate with Feds in their investigations.

Unconstitutional law is just that, unconstitutional. It was never intended for SCOTUS to be able to dictate constitutionality to the states.

Unconstitutional laws ARE unconstitutional.

I can guarantee Skippy would not make a decent pimple on Madison or Jefferson, but he thinks he is smarter.

Here's the description of the bill.

"An Act prohibiting state and municipal agencies from using assets to implement or aid
02 in the implementation of the requirements of certain federal statutes, regulations, rules,
03 and orders that are applied to infringe on a person's right to bear arms or right to due
04 process or that implement or aid in the implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of
05 2005; exempting certain firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in this state
06 from federal regulation; declaring certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders
07 unconstitutional under the Constitution of the United States and unenforceable in this
08 state; requiring the attorney general to file any legal action to prevent implementation of
09 a federal statute, regulation, rule, or order that violates the rights of a resident of the
10 state; and providing for an effective date."

You will notice that the attorney general is required to file legal action to prevent implementation of federal statutes, regulations, rules or orders that violate the rights of Alaska residents.

I think these bills will make the federal government's job much, much harder. If the states are no longer going to act as their agents in enforcing unconstitutional laws, regulations, orders and rules, the feds are going to be ensnared in a snake pit of legal actions that will hinder them for years and cost them millions. Sooner or later they will be forced to either give up or show their true colors and send the military in to take over the state. If that happens, it's game on.

It's kind of the same thing as worker's going on strike and actively blocking the entrance to the plant. You might be able to stay in business, but it ain't gonna be business as usual and it's gonna cost you big time. And the harder the feds push the more people they will turn against them.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Alaska tell the feds to take a hike with the NICS system. We're simply not going to use it any more. Try and make us.

baldeagle wrote:Here's the description of the bill.

You will notice that the attorney general is required to file legal action to prevent implementation of federal statutes, regulations, rules or orders that violate the rights of Alaska residents.

I think these bills will make the federal government's job much, much harder. If the states are no longer going to act as their agents in enforcing unconstitutional laws, regulations, orders and rules, the feds are going to be ensnared in a snake pit of legal actions that will hinder them for years and cost them millions. Sooner or later they will be forced to either give up or show their true colors and send the military in to take over the state. If that happens, it's game on.

It's kind of the same thing as worker's going on strike and actively blocking the entrance to the plant. You might be able to stay in business, but it ain't gonna be business as usual and it's gonna cost you big time. And the harder the feds push the more people they will turn against them.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Alaska tell the feds to take a hike with the NICS system. We're simply not going to use it any more. Try and make us.

I dearly hope this becomes a reality. Time for the People to take back our rights.

APynckel wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

APynckel wrote:http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... nors-desk/

Alaska’s HB69, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, had it’s third reading in the senate last night, April 10th, and passed with a 17-3 vote. It returned to the house this morning, where they voted 34-5 to concur with the Senate version. The bill will be transmitted to Governor Parnell’s desk.

If Parnell signs it into law, it would nullify a large swath of unconstitutional federal power over the right to keep and bear arms. It begins with the premise that violations of the 2nd Amendment are not law at all

C'mon Texas! Let's follow suit!

Federal law would trump local law, All what states can do is not to enforce or corporate with Feds in their investigations.

Unconstitutional law is just that, unconstitutional. It was never intended for SCOTUS to be able to dictate constitutionality to the states.

It has been the accepted legal view for nearly two centuries.

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

—Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 1803

LOL at the John Marshall quote as he is unconstitutionally using a power never delegated to him, to give him the power he is using. The states should have just 100% laughed that ruling 6 feet under.

Most ridiculous court ruling ever.

If the people of Alaska, through their duly elected representatives, tell the federal government to go fly a kite, what recourse does the federal government have? They can withhold funds from the state, but Alaska probably can do fine without federal funds. All they'd have to do is open up ANWAR and the federal dollars would pale in comparison. Texas could probably do the same with its gas reserves. Are the feds going to send troops in to take over the states? I suspect they'd meet with a lot of resistance from Texans, much less the government of Texas.

APynckel wrote:C'mon Texas! Let's follow suit!

We can't even follow suit on open carry, much less campus carry. How can we expect something like this?

APynckel wrote:LOL at the John Marshall quote as he is unconstitutionally using a power never delegated to him, to give him the power he is using. The states should have just 100% laughed that ruling 6 feet under.

Most ridiculous court ruling ever.

Really?

Perhaps it falls under the "fool most of the people all the time", or something.

In any event, it has never been successfully challenged, has been the law now for 200 years, and is likely to remain so. The Court's power to be the final arbitrator is firmly entrenched in our law and body politic, except of course by the Commies in this administration who wish to ignore it.

JALLEN wrote:

APynckel wrote:LOL at the John Marshall quote as he is unconstitutionally using a power never delegated to him, to give him the power he is using. The states should have just 100% laughed that ruling 6 feet under.

Most ridiculous court ruling ever.

Really?

Perhaps it falls under the "fool most of the people all the time", or something.

In any event, it has never been successfully challenged, has been the law now for 200 years, and is likely to remain so. The Court's power to be the final arbitrator is firmly entrenched in our law and body politic, except of course by the Commies in this administration who wish to ignore it.

Yes, really. Find where in the constitution it says that SCOTUS is to be the final say on constitutionality for me. No, please go ahead, i'll wait.

APynckel wrote:
Yes, really. Find where in the constitution it says that SCOTUS is to be the final say on constitutionality for me. No, please go ahead, i'll wait.

Right there in the same paragraph where it says that nothing that isn't expressly stated can ever be OK.

You're entitled to your views. It makes no difference to me, you understand. I don't begrudge anyone their eccentricities. I treasure my own so. But your view is merely that.

All I am pointing out is that there is 200+ years of Constitutional Law, which has been argued and debated and ruled upon and voted upon, all to the contrary, mostly by the most learned and experienced legal thinkers in the country. There are few legal principles more solidly entrenched in our law. Someone has to be the final authority, to interpret the Constitution, measure new laws against it, resolve the clash of vital Constitutional interests, and decide. Almost everyone agrees that the Supreme Court is it. If you chose to challenge it, that would be what we lawyers sometimes call "an uphill fight."

Beiruty wrote:

APynckel wrote:http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... nors-desk/

Alaska’s HB69, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, had it’s third reading in the senate last night, April 10th, and passed with a 17-3 vote. It returned to the house this morning, where they voted 34-5 to concur with the Senate version. The bill will be transmitted to Governor Parnell’s desk.

If Parnell signs it into law, it would nullify a large swath of unconstitutional federal power over the right to keep and bear arms. It begins with the premise that violations of the 2nd Amendment are not law at all

C'mon Texas! Let's follow suit!

Federal law would trump local law, All what states can do is not to enforce or corporate with Feds in their investigations.

I agree. The best course of action for the states is passive resistance. The federal government does not have enough officers to enforce the federal law in all the states. There will be a few (you know which ones) that will, but if 40 or so make it clear to the feds they will not enforce the gun laws or assist federal officers enforcing the laws, it will flop.

baldeagle wrote:If the people of Alaska, through their duly elected representatives, tell the federal government to go fly a kite, what recourse does the federal government have? They can withhold funds from the state, but Alaska probably can do fine without federal funds. All they'd have to do is open up ANWAR and the federal dollars would pale in comparison. Texas could probably do the same with its gas reserves. Are the feds going to send troops in to take over the states? I suspect they'd meet with a lot of resistance from Texans, much less the government of Texas.

that could play out really weird

if the fed tried to get the entrenched or stationed troops to act as their agent and take back Alaska. then the gov, activates the state guard and we have soldier against soldier, and many that are stationed there i would surmise would violate orders and not attack our own people
1. their families instantly become targets of opportunity, even though that is heinous, it would happen
2. alaska by its very position geographically is isolated and could hold off the big guns for sometime
3. state guard has access to lot and lots of toys to subdue an aggressor

would be interesting for certain