Skip to Content

Idaho senate votes to nullify any new federal gun control measures

From blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com:

A proposed Idaho bill would nullify future federal gun laws by prohibiting state enforcement of any federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition. It passed the state senate on Wednesday by a vote of 34-0, with one member not voting.

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, or SB1332, would

“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

The legislation continues:

Conservative College Student Gives Liberal College a $50,000 Lesson

Fournd at liberallogic101.com:

Constitution ruling 500

A California college student who was blocked last year from handing out copies of the Constitution gave his school a lesson in civics and the law, winning a $50,000 settlement and an agreement to revise its speech codes.

Robert Van Tuinen, 26, settled with Modesto Junior College just five months after his run-in with school officials on Sept. 17 – National Constitution Day. Van Tuinen said he’s more excited about getting the school to revise its speech codes, which previously confined the First Amendment to a small area students had to sign up to use.

“They were maintaining an unconstitutional speech code, and now any of my fellow students can go out and exercise their right to free speech,” said Van Tuinen, an Army veteran who grew up in Modesto and now studies photography.

In September, 2013 Van Tuinen released a video he took of his confrontation with school officials. In the video, he is confronted by an unidentified campus police officer within minutes of passing out the pamphlets. When he protests, he is told “there are rules,” and is escorted to an administrators office who shows him a binder with rules she says govern free speech on campus.

Eric Holder To State Attorneys General: You Don't Have to Enforce Laws You Disagree With

Don't bother upholding the law, just do what suits you. Unbelieveable. At townhall.com:

Attorney General Eric Holder is taking the lawless attitude of the Obama administration and passing it down to state attorneys general. Yesterday during an interview with The New York Times, Holder said state attorneys general do not have to enforce laws they disagree with, specifically when it comes to the issue of gay marriage.

It is highly unusual for the United States attorney general to advise his state counterparts on how and when to refuse to defend state laws. But Mr. Holder said when laws touch on core constitutional issues like equal protection, an attorney general should apply the highest level of scrutiny before reaching a decision on whether to defend it. He said the decision should never be political or based on policy objections.

“Engaging in that process and making that determination is something that’s appropriate for an attorney general to do,” Mr. Holder said.

In 2011, the Obama administration announced attorneys in the Department of Justice would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, which was later struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court.

US Navy SEALs On Power Grid Attack: "A Carbon Copy" of How We Would Do It

Read the whole thing at shtfplan.com:

Ninth Circuit Recognizes Right to Bear Arms Outside the Home

I'm surprised that this ruling came out of the 9th Circuit. Originally on blogs.wsj.com:

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review two other cases that ask the question of whether the right to “bear arms” extends beyond the home.

The California-based appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, delved into American history, from the Founding Era forward, and found support for the notion that “bearing arms” means carrying a gun in public:

So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The case comes from San Diego County, which, according to state law, requires residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun. Personal safety alone does not qualify as good cause. The question for the court was whether the requirement infringes on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

From the Ninth Circuit:

US Post Office Is in the Market for Ammo

Seen at moonbattery.com:

The US Post Office is not a law enforcement agency. So why does it need assorted small arms ammunition?

post-office-ammo

Oh, I get why. For the same reason that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration needs 72,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammo, the National Weather Service needs 46,000 rounds of the same, the Social Security Administration needs 174,000 rounds, and the Department of Education needs to blow $80,000 on Glocks and $17,000 on shotguns.

Syndicate content


by Dr. Radut