[ninjahamster]

Right to Bear Arms Protection Act

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/bil ... =B&BN=0357

An Act providing that any Federal law which attempts to register, restrict or ban a firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm in this Commonwealth shall be unenforceable in this Commonwealth; and imposing penalties.

Highlights of House Bill 357 include:

• prohibitions against enforcement of any new federal registration, restriction or prohibition requirement for privately owned firearms, magazines and ammunition.

• the requirement that the state of Pennsylvania, including the Office of Attorney General, to intercede on behalf of Commonwealth citizens against any federal attempt to register, restrict or ban the purchase or ownership of firearms and firearms accessories which are currently legal products.

• felony charges against anyone – including federal agents who try to enforce any type of gun control restriction within state borders.

This seems to be a growing trend. Let's hope it picks up more momentum among other states as well.

[astro_wanabe]

I hope a few actually see their respective floors for votes, let alone actually get passed. Any legislator can write a bill; it remains to be seen if the states will be willing to stand behind them.

[NormH3]

I believe PA has the largest population of NRA members in the country. Should be interesting to see how this goes with a new DA who swore to get rid of the "gunshow loophole"

[bluedog46]

Things like this is why I tell people PA is one of the more intresting of these united states. WHile voting for Obama and casey last time overall the state seems very liberty minded and fairly conservative. On national elections though most of the votes are the same place most of the dope, shootings, and crime is. That would be Philadelphia.

[astro_wanabe]

These types of bills will, most likely, be struck down by federal courts, who seem all too willing to go along with whatever federal expansion Congress can think of. If the state/local governments actively stop federal agencies from enforcing federal laws the feds could even use it as reasoning under the Insurrection Act to send in Federal troops. Of course I don't believe that should be legal (power is supposed to be inherent in the people - if they choose to no longer recognize the current government, and want to form a new government, I fully support their right to do so) but it's on the books. To be honest I'm actually kind of split on the "nullification" issue in general. While it sounds great to so easily get rid of a law you don't like, doing so does seem like an overreach on the part of the states (assuming the role of a federal court to decide the constitutionality of laws, or even refusing to aknowledge an enumerated power). Then again, since the states can't propose & pass amendments to protect themselves without the Fed's blessing, what else (besides seceding) are they to do? Perhaps it would be best for the states to be allowed to ratify ammendments simply by passing them in 2/3 of the statehouses, without the federal congress needing to be involved at all (and without resorting to a ConCon).

It would be nice if the SCOTUS would do its job and finally enforce the limits on federal power in the first place, notably by clearing up the vagueness of what's allowed under Heller by insisting that "shall not be infringed" means what it says (only allowing restrictions on threatening/harming others since you can't use your rights to violate the rights of others), and secondly reversing their ruling that the commerce clause applies to anything that "affects" interstate commerce even if the thing in question is purely intrastate.

I'd be very supportive of a constitutional amendment specifically stating that 1. the commerce clause only applies to commerce at the time it crosses a border and 2. that the necessary & proper clause is only a truism reinforcing that the legislature is allowed to make laws relating to and within the bounds of the powers granted the Federal government. Stopping these unconstitutional gun laws with the 2A only stops one type of federal expansion, when what we need is comprehensive reigning in of federal power across the board.

[nonuser]

I believe PA has the largest population of NRA members in the country. Should be interesting to see how this goes with a new DA who swore to get rid of the "gunshow loophole"

Looks nice but empty on the inside......Not only loophole, she also after ccw permits!!!

[SugarBoy13]

I'd be very supportive of a constitutional amendment specifically stating that 1. the commerce clause only applies to commerce at the time it crosses a border and 2. that the necessary & proper clause is only a truism reinforcing that the legislature is allowed to make laws relating to and within the bounds of the powers granted the Federal government. Stopping these unconstitutional gun laws with the 2A only stops one type of federal expansion, when what we need is comprehensive reigning in of federal power across the board.

This is EXACTLY what needs to happen since the SCOTUS is unwilling or incapable of doing it themselves. I would further recommend another amendment fundamentally changing how the SCOTUS intervenes in the process by requiring all signed legislation to be reviewed by the court for Constitutionality prior to enforcement. Germany has a similar process and I will have to read up a bit more on how it works but, I believe our current jurisprudence disenfranchises We the People by requiring "standing" prior to any judicial review. And even then, it takes years to eventually get a verdict and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[astro_wanabe]

I'd be very supportive of a constitutional amendment specifically stating that 1. the commerce clause only applies to commerce at the time it crosses a border and 2. that the necessary & proper clause is only a truism reinforcing that the legislature is allowed to make laws relating to and within the bounds of the powers granted the Federal government. Stopping these unconstitutional gun laws with the 2A only stops one type of federal expansion, when what we need is comprehensive reigning in of federal power across the board.

This is EXACTLY what needs to happen since the SCOTUS is unwilling or incapable of doing it themselves. I would further recommend another amendment fundamentally changing how the SCOTUS intervenes in the process by requiring all signed legislation to be reviewed by the court for Constitutionality prior to enforcement. Germany has a similar process and I will have to read up a bit more on how it works but, I believe our current jurisprudence disenfranchises We the People by requiring "standing" prior to any judicial review. And even then, it takes years to eventually get a verdict and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I could support such an ammendment, however I fear that ruling on the constitutionality of every bill could be both excruciatingly time consuming for a court that already has to cherry-pick which cases to fill it's year with, and pose a greater burden to overturning laws after better legal arguments are prepared since everything will already have a SCOTUS ruling supporting it. Perhaps a good balance would be to use a system similar to how you aren't ruled "innocent" but rather "guilty" or "not guilty". In this case, SCOTUS would only rule a new law "unconstiutional" or "no contest", so that there wouldn't be an "affirmative" type ruling. Only negative or neutral.

[bluedog46]

A supreme court Justice named Soloman once said "State's rights died at Appomattox". Confederate General Robert E. Lee had said before his death to the effect that if he had know what would have occured he would have "died with my sword in my right hand".

I hope for the best but would not be suprised by the worst. People are getting sick of these power grabs.