BREAKING: Idaho governor signs emergency legislation nullifying all future federal gun laws

By: Michael Lotfi
306

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.


BOISE, March 21, 2014 – On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.

S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.

Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, cheered the governor’s action. “By signing this nullification bill into law, Idaho has joined an elite class of states that are telling the feds to ‘get lost’ — especially when it comes to unconstitutional gun control infringements”

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, will:

“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 continued:

any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…

S1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon signature.

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey considered the legislation a good start. “This is an important first step for Idaho,” he said. “Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.”

Passage into law represents a giant step forward in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho. As the law now stands, state and local law enforcement will not cooperate with all future federal firearm laws.

The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. United States serves as the cornerstone.

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said that the new Idaho law has opened Pandora’s box even wider.

“People are beginning to realize that this practice is completely constitutional and legal. In the near future, you will see a wave of states passing even broader legislation to fight the federal government on everything ranging from more traditionally liberal issues like hemp and marijuana, to more conservative issues like Obamacare.” Boldin continued, “Nullification isn’t a left vs. right issue. It destroys the fallacy of the left right paradigm and is the remedy for all unconstitutional laws.”

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

The following two tabs change content below.

Michael Lotfi

CEO, Political Director at BrandFire Consulting LLC
Michael Lotfi is a Persian-American political analyst and adviser living in Nashville, Tennessee. Lotfi is the founder and CEO of BrandFire Consulting LLC. The firm specializes in public and private technology centered brand development, lead generation, data aggregation, online fundraising, social media, advertising, content generation, public relations, constituency management systems, print and more. Lotfi is also the executive state director for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center, a think-tank focused on restraining federal overreach. Lotfi graduated with top honors from Belmont University, a private Christian university located in Nashville, Tennessee.

  • Liberty or Death

    Unanimous votes in both the House and the Senate. Now those legislators are True Patriots!!

    • Cinncinatus

      Excellent job, Idaho! I hope to see Colorado follow your lead after the mid-term elections. Despert Ferro!

    • Balto2

      I hope ALL states see the value in this and do the same. Even states that are the most liberal will see their error and perhaps mend their ways and stand up for their own Constitutional liberty. Great job Idaho Patriots and thank you from a Michigan Patriot.

      • UtahTwisted

        Not sure how an unconstitutional act make you a constitutional patriot… seems contradictory to me…

        • twotone64

          Utah, They are not blocking the federal LEOs from coming and doing business as they see fit, they have passed legislation into law that says they are not going to “help/support” those federal LEOs with state/local LEO’s.

  • gwydion

    “As it stands now, state and local law enforcement will cooperate with all future firearms laws.” – Lotfi, I can’t tell what you mean here.

    • Michael Lotfi

      Typo. My mistake.

  • Tylek T’sarran

    Hang on a second here. If ‘ it takes effect immediately upon signature’, and ‘On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed’ but ‘As it stands now, state and local law enforcement will cooperate with all future firearms laws.’ WTF did he actually do?

    • amommamust

      Will NOT cooperate.
      Very good news for me, although I trust Butch about as far as I can throw an elephant, or a RINO.

  • Jay Strickland

    Nullifying is not the best word use. Idaho is not blocking federal enforcement of the law they are simply declining to enforce any new federal law.

    • Michael Lotfi

      You sort of contradict yourself there… “Declining to enforce any new federal law” is blocking a federal law when the new state law reads that those who attempt to overcome the will be charged with civil penalty. The law does not nullify all existing laws, but the article never claimed it did.

      • Michael Lotfi

        This semi-interposition is certainly an element of nullification.

      • HumbleGod

        Under the text of this law, if a local LEO observes a violation of a “future” federal firearms law, does he still have probable cause to effect an arrest? Seems pretty clear that he does, unless there’s something about Idaho law that says that violations of federal law cannot serve as PC in such cases. In that light, isn’t “nullification” an inaccurate term?

        EDIT: Also, what about Jay S’s other point — Idaho will not be blocking federal enforcement of the law. (THAT would be a true attempt at nullification.) If federal agencies can still enforce federal law, and even local LEOs can arrest based on observed violations of federal law, it’s hard to consider this to be “nullification” in any realistic sense.

      • Jay Strickland

        As I read the bill the civil penalty is reserved for state employees. States are free to direct and punish their own employees. Now nullification would involve states arresting and finding federal employees in order to prevent them from discharging their federal duties in state.

    • Ward Damon Hubbard

      Clearly, it is a matter of sovereignty, and the ability of each state to govern the population of that state, the second amendment, is written direct, and is as short in length for a reason, it is not clumsy, it is meant to be understood only one way, by design, to survive over time, and it is a Vidal part of a individual’s freedom and sovereignty, and each state’s government ability to work effectively..

      • Jay Strickland

        About as much about sovereignty and nullification as legalization of pot in Colorado is. States do not have to enforce federal laws and are free to force the federal government to exhaust resources enforcing its laws. Nullification as a practical matter is about obstructing federal enforcement, this is a non enforcement provision.

  • pegger204

    My American neighbors, you can vote with your feet

  • Petercha0001

    Interesting. I have never seen the nation more polarized than I have under the current extremely liberal administration. It’s even worse than it was under Carter. I just hope it doesn’t evolve into violence of any kind. The current administration needs to be far less adamant about imposing extreme leftist policies on the American people – they need to be more flexible and willing to compromise.

    • BajaDreamer

      There very nearly was violence in Connecticut recently over their new draconian registration law(s) regarding semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. Letters confiscations were already being sent out by the time the legislators figured out that 68% of the total law enforcement there also owned said weapons and most had also not registered them before the deadline and had no intention of doing so!

  • Eruaran

    Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws, they’re violations of the law.

  • Kenny_Login

    But… What if it were a law or amendment allowing any weapon and/or munition to b carried by any person at any time with absolutely NO restrictions whatsoever?

    • Michael Lotfi

      There already is- it’s called the Second Amendment.

      • UtahTwisted

        That’s not what the 2nd Amendment says

        • HumbleGod

          It’s also not what the Supreme Court has said in interpreting the Second Amendment.

          • Bryant

            The supreme court was right when they said it is an individual right yet in the same ruling contradicted themselves by saying it is not unconditional. Wtf does infringe mean then? Any responsible person should be able to own anything that the government owns as long as they aren’t committing a crime or hurting anyone. If someone has the capacity to safely own a middle then that’s their right.

          • Bryant

            Missile not middle

          • HumbleGod

            That is certainly one perspective. The problem is that 9 out of 9 sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices believe that your perspective is wrong.

          • Bryant

            How can I be wrong? I’m using common sense and facts to comprehend the meaning of the words used in the second amendment. The supreme court is a bunch of pompous elitests who believe their opinion is above my rights, and that’s a fact

    • BajaDreamer

      Do you have something against me driving my tank to work?
      Don’t be silly. This isn’t what this conversation is about.

  • Raylusk

    Police officers and other law enforcement personnel swear and oath to uphold the US Constitution amongst other laws. As long as the Federal law is Constitutional they are violating their oath if they don’t enforce that law. Idaho has put their law enforcement personnel in a no win situation.

    • James Hale

      What part of “shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand? By the Oxford dictionary the word “Infringe” has a very clear meaning: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach upon. This means that any new law limiting/encroaching the right to bear arms that isn’t an official change to the Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Constitution cannot be trumped it has to be altered accordingly. There are procedures to do it but here lately the government does as it pleases regardless of the repurcussions…republicans and democrats alike.

      • Raylusk

        The body that the founders set up in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, the US Supreme Court, has ruled that the right isn’t unconditional and is subject to appropriate regulations. I also see you and other gun fanatics forget about the first part of the Second Amendment that talks about a well REGULATED militia. The fact is that gun regulations can and often are Constitutional. Background checks have been upheld as Constitutional. Keeping guns out of the hands of felons has also been upheld as Constitutional. As has bans on automatic weapons. No right outlined in the Constitution is absolute. Those that claim it is ignore history.

        • Petercha0001

          Actually, the founders did not set up the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. The Court gave itself that power in the Marbury v. Madison decision. And I see that you talk about a well regulated militia. Do you approve of the Michigan Militia, then? It’s pretty well regulated.

          • Raylusk

            You don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the Constitution. Here is what it says about the judiciary. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”. It’s clear that the Supreme Court was set up to interpret the Constitution.

            I don’t know anything about the Michigan Militia. But if it isn’t State sponsored it isn’t legal. All militias during our revolutionary war were sponsored by the States and that is the frame of reference under which that part of the Constitution was written. It’s what our founding fathers understood militias to be when the wrote the Constitution.

          • Michael Lotfi

            No Raylusk- you are wrong…. It’s called context. Feel free to read the Federalists Papers concerning the Judiciary.

          • Raylusk

            No it’s you who are wrong. I’m sorry you don’t like what the Constitution says but too bad.

          • top secret

            Nanana. You are a pathetic waste of freedom!

          • richardmilhous

            I don’t know about the rest of the States, but in Massachusetts the Lexington Militia, Woburn Militia, etc. were all town raised. Formed and commanded by local leaders, comprised of volunteers who were members of the town, who’s ONLY well regulation was being male of a certain age and you had to provide your own weapon and kit. The National Guard is not even close.

          • BajaDreamer

            It appears that you need to brush up on your legal history as well as general U.S. history.

          • Raylusk

            No it’s you morons that claim to be guardians of the Constitution that need to brush up.

          • BajaDreamer

            Ah yes, now the name calling starts. Typical of someone who has a weak and/or unsupported argument.
            As I’ve already said, the SCOTUS has already issued decisions stating plainly that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and that while they have said that the states have the power to regulate that right within reason, they do NOT have the right to negate it in any fashion concerning a citizen in good legal standing who is not otherwise prohibited form owning a firearm considered legal in that state.

            Sorry you don’t like that.

          • Raylusk

            And I’ve exposed your lie in other comments you made. The Supreme Court did not limit the regulation of guns to just the States.

          • BajaDreamer

            Once more with feeling……

            I never once anywhere in this entire conversation said that the SCOTUS limited regulation to just the states. You made that up out of whole cloth when you said I used the word “ONLY” which I never did in the original statement that got your panties in a wad.

          • Bryant

            Theyre not here to make up an opinion on how it should be interpreted. The scotus’ oath that they recite doesn’t say interpret the Constitution. It says uphold.

          • Raylusk

            I’ve clearly posted where the Constitution says the Supreme Court decides who is correct when a Constitutional challenge is made. That is interpreting it and is exactly why the founding fathers intended. You don’t like the way the Constitution works well to freaking bad.

          • Raylusk

            Read what I posted. They decide what the Constitution means when two parties disagree on the meaning. That is interpreting the Constitution just like I said.

        • BajaDreamer

          Two things here.

          1. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right that the state has NO right to take that away from a citizen who is legally entitled to own a firearm. A state may regulate it, but it cannot remove it from a citizen in good legal standing. Nor can the federal government.

          2. I love it when people like you bring up the militia part of the 2nd Amendment! Let me ask you; back when the Constitution was written, who was the militia? It was WE THE PEOPLE, that’s who! It was the farmers, shop keepers, and tradesmen of the land who made up the militia, and they were largely responsible for arming themselves!

          And you have the gall to talk about ignoring history? You don’t even seem to be that well informed about recent history!

          • Raylusk

            The militia wasn’t “We the People” with no regulation. In fact if you look at your history, at the time of the founding fathers there were laws in place that requires those that own guns to participate in regular training with their state recognized local militia. You gun nuts are the ones that don’t understand our history.

          • BajaDreamer

            ‘Scuse me there a sec. Exactly where did I say they had “no regulation”? The regulation they had was that they had officers who were in general selected from their own ranks, and that they received a minimum of training, and that’s about it. This was also a time of war here in this country that doesn’t currently exist. However that doesn’t change why the 2nd amendment was put in place! Read it……….

            >>”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.”<<

            "being necessary to the security of a free state" was not speaking about individual states, it was speaking about the state of freedom! The other part that apparently bothers you is "shall not be infringed". I am ever so happy that you anti gun whack jobs constantly have your panties in a wad over that. ;-)

          • Bryant

            That’s what I tell people all the time. The state isn’t the state government. State means the “status” of a person being free.

          • top secret

            A law should be passed that it’s illegal for raylusk to use the word “understand”! A cinder block has more common sense!

        • Bryant

          Look up the definition of “regulate.” It does not conflict the word infringe. Therefore the 1986 ban on civilian ownership on newly manufactured machine guns IS unconstitutional because it is a limit/ban. The purpose of the word regulate was meant for the PEOPLE to organize and train themselves. Our forefathers sacrificed everything, fought and died for the rights that we take for granted everyday and allow our current government to limit and take away. People now a days are like spoiled children who don’t understand the value of money and working hard. To this day people will die for freedom all over the world. Being completely free has its dangers and therefore requires that every person be very responsible for themselves and their actions. This might be scary to people like you but it is true freedom.

          • Raylusk

            The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you so bans on automatic weapons is Constitutional. You can cry all you want but that is a fact.

          • Bryant

            Well the supreme court is wrong. But there are too many sheep like you, who don’t understand the value of freedom, and believe it’s up to the government to do whatever THEY think is necessary to keep us “safe.” Including limiting the rights and freedoms of all people no matter who they are. Currently, my cousin who is a former Navy SEAL and my brother who is a former Army ranger are not allowed to own the weapons that they were trained to proficiently use. That’s not right.

          • Raylusk

            It’s right if they have mental issues from their service that would make them a danger to society. By the way because I support the Constitution that makes me a sheep? Nope. But you not supporting the Constitution make you a traitor.

          • Bryant

            You seem like the one who has mental issues. It seems your alliance lies with the all powerful scouts and not the people. If we were doing as the constitution required every community would have a militia who decides where everyone ranks and who should be responsible for handling the firearms. Not everyone in the military carry or shoot a firearm at all time yet they’re trained on how to use it. The same should be with people in the community. If the others in the militia don’t believe you are capable of handling a firearm in a safe manner ( i.e. mental illness/disability, too young , not strong enough etc) then you will not be one who is allowed to posses it. But that’s not the government’s responsibility to decide let alone should they be setting out blanket laws that infringe upon EVERYONE’S rights

          • Raylusk

            The Federal Government hasn’t set up any gun laws that infringes on everyone’s rights. Since that is what we are talking about here is the federal government and gun rights you clearly just want to lie with your claims of infringement.

            You have also not demonstrated that the founding fathers didn’t expect these militias be well regulated not self regulated as you claim.

          • Bryant

            It says THE PEOPLE. The Bill of Rights are rights guaranteed to every individual citizen as long as they don’t do anything to limit the same rights,freedom or liberty of another individual citizen. No where in the 2A does it say the government is to regulate arms. There’s nothing I can do for you if you don’t understand that they HAVE infringed on my rights as a responsible human being. The fact that I can’t own the full auto vector because of a “law” IS infringement. Its nonsense. I can take a full auto m16 bolt and sear manufactured before 1986 and drop them in my AR 15 and have that be legal bit not purchase a new full auto m4. They’re exactly the same thing but the law is designed to limit it until there are no longer any more bolts. Its a slimy way of weeding away our right without immediately taking it away.

          • Raylusk

            Oh cry me a river. You can’t buy an automatic weapon and the law that prevents you from doing so is Constitutional. It must suck to be you that you put so much importance on owning an automatic weapon that you have to cry on an open forum about it. Well guess what I’m glad you can’t own one and if I could I would take away all your guns because you clearly are mentally unstable. All you have done here is lie, spin and cry. Try to claim that your clear words didn’t mean what they clearly mean. You are exactly one of the people that should be excluded from owning guns because you are unstable.

          • Bryant

            I already own a machine gun. Its a full auto m10 with a suppressor. Shoots 1200 rounds/minute. And I will own it until I die because I will never commit a crime with it. This is the way it should be. What do you have to say about that

          • BajaDreamer

            ‘Scuse me, but your ignorance is showing badly, and that you have lied and accused another of lying out of that very same ignorance.

            It is in fact perfectly legal to own a fully automatic firearm in most states. All one has to do is pay the one time $200 dollar tax stamp and go through all the red tape involved. The sale must be completed through a Class III federally licensed dealer. Then there are the incredible prices for the firearm itself. This is why most people don’t own one.
            Read and become enlightened dingleberry!

            http://thearmsguide.com/2349/full-auto-is-legal/

            http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

          • Bryant

            But the 1934 NFA act and the 1986 ban have had a negative affect on gun rights and ownership. We cannot “legally” own class three firearms manufactured after May 1986. This makes it so the already limited supply is dwindling over time and everything left is unaffordable. This is a slimy way for the government to suppress us. Eventually they will have guns that shoot unlimited ammo at 1 million rounds per minute while we only have 19th century technology. How are we going to have an effective defense against tyranny 50 years from now if we allow the 1986 ban to stand? We have to get rid of it now.

          • BajaDreamer

            I’m well aware of the further restrictions place on ownership of fully automatic weapons. I was merely pointing out that we can in fact own them in most states to the all knowing @$$hat who said in his ignorance that we couldn’t own them at all.

            But I believe you’re engaging in pure fantasy with that “1 million rounds per minute” thing. I’d also ask you exactly how the wide variety of modern semi automatic rifles we can own now constitutes “19th century technology”?

          • Joshua

            Typical rightie. The body designed to uphold the constitution is wrong if they don’t like what they decide. Definitely in the right though if their judgment coincides with what you believe to be the truth. Absolutely pathetic.

          • Bryant

            I’m neither right nor left. I’m a libertarian. Look at what you typed. Uphold and “they decide” are in the same sentence. Those are contradicting phrases/words. It was already decided what the amendment meant when it was written in the 18th century. How can they decide on something that was already decided. And look up the definition of judgment. It co rains the word “opinion.” The bill of rights weren’t meant to be interpreted by the opinions of a governmental body. They are meant to remind said governmental bodies that We the People retain the power and we have the right to so whatever we please as long as it does not limit someone else.

          • judenjager

            You sound like a jew. Whine, whine, whine..

          • Raylusk

            You don’t just sound like a bigot you are one. Piss off.

          • judenjager

            Don’t you have a pillow to bite, bottomfeeder?

          • Petercha0001

            To be fair, not all Jews are whiners – just the liberal ones.

        • MJB

          “Well Regulated” at the time of the writing did not mean “regulated” as we know it today. “Well Regulated” meant “properly functioning”, NOT regulated as to restrict!

          • Raylusk

            Wrong. Laws at the time required regular training as actual militias and even stopped some people from owning guns. You don’t know what you are talking about but I find that is typical of you gun nuts. Owning a gun is so important to you that you will spin and twist everything to make your case. It won’t work with those of us that have read and understand history.

          • MJB

            Wrong? I don’t think so… I pulled this definition directly from the historical information of the time.

            It is YOU who are wrong!

            You have NO IDEA what I think in re: gun rights.

            But I am a student of the Constitution and Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers and Non Federalist Papers.

            I have spent the past 30 years researching and learning what the original intent of the founders was AT THE TIME! Not the twisted current interpretation is…

            You have a current twisted definition!

            I am no “gun nut”… But I am a Constitutional Nut!

            Our founders intended that we had the means to defend ourselves from an oppressive and tyrannical government. THAT is the reason the 2nd Amendment was put in place…

          • BajaDreamer

            OK then, who was it back in those times that was stopped from owning guns and why? Please enlighten us with your omniscience!

          • top secret

            “Understand history”? ! Raylusk, you understand nothing! Also, you say automatic weapons are “banned”. Pass the background check, buy your tax stamp, register the weapon. Any American citizen can own one, thank God, or fools like you would have us live under tyranny!

        • James Hale

          When is enough enough?

          • Raylusk

            Irrational fears? When one child kills another because some idiot like you left their gun laying around. Or when an adult gun owner is showing off his gun and it accidentally fires killing some innocent. These aren’t irrational fears these are happening everyday. By the way your kind of talk dismissing the problem and calling us gun grabbers is exactly what is going to cause you to lose your guns. You gun nuts either quit with this crap of opposing every single regulation or at some point the over 70% of Americans that support these regulations will rise up and change the Constitution and eliminate your right to own guns. I don’t want that but if you gun nuts don’t realize there is a place in society for regulations of guns that is exactly what will happen.

          • James Hale

            We’re waiting.

    • Gwenn

      Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution (and, if applicable, the Constitution of their particular state), not to carry out the Acts passed by Congress. Those are two separate entities, and that is why the Department of Justice is the Law Enforcement arm of the Federal Government.
      The only ones violating an oath were they to NOT enforce FEDERAL law would be the agents of the FEDERAL government. State, County/Parish, and Municipal law enforcement voluntarily cooperate with the Federal agencies. However, they are at different levels of government; unless on Federal property, there is no requirement to ENFORCE Federal law by State, County/Parish, or Municipal law enforcement officers. Just because a law is constitutional does not mean that an agency has any authority to enforce it, which is why municipality law-enforcement agencies can enforce state law *within that municipality’s boundaries* but state law-enforcement agencies cannot enforce municipal ordinances–the authority to enforce laws relates to the authorizing agency.
      There is a reason each state has its own constitution and its own legislature; they are separate from the Federal Government. That is also why the Tenth Amendment was written…because the individual states were worried that a strong central government would begin to run rough-shod over state governments. It’s also why the Senators used to be elected by the state legislatures rather than the populace.
      BTW, the local law enforcement doesn’t actually charge someone with a federal crime…IF they already have someone who CAN be charged federally, they consult with the feds and THE FEDS decide whether or not to charge and try that person. The local agencies will sometimes, *in cooperation with the feds*, arrest someone on a warrant for a federal crime–a voluntary cooperation, and the locals are sometimes accompanied by an agent from the feds.

      • Raylusk

        No matter how you try an spin it, all law enforcement has sworn an oath to uphold the law and that means all the law. If they see a federal law being violated their oath says they should act.

        • Super soaker

          Wrong! Nice try come again

        • BajaDreamer

          That must be why 68% of law enforcement in Connecticut refused to register or turn in their semi automatic rifles as the asinine and overly restrictive law passed there said they were supposed to.
          Try and keep up sonny.

    • BajaDreamer

      As I just said to that Twisted Utah person above……

      “Since the SCOTUS has already decided that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states, this new Idaho law is in support of the Constitution, not the violation of it.

      Nice try though.”

      The fact of the matter is that with the most recent rulings by the SCOTUS regarding 2nd Amendment rights, and federal officer or official who confiscates a legally purchased and owned firearm is in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. What this new law does is to reinforce the 2nd Amendment in the state of Idaho. As the article states, other states have also done this, but not with unanimous support in their state legislatures. There will be other states following suit.

      • Raylusk

        You lied. The Supreme Court did not say that only States can make reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. So quit with the lies.

        • BajaDreamer

          OH geez, typical left wing whack job trying to twist words into something that was never said or even implied. Go read it again numb nuts! At NO time did I say that ONLY only States can make reasonable restrictions on gun ownership”.

          The direct quote as written is…..

          >>”Since the SCOTUS has already decided that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states, this new Idaho law is in support of the Constitution, not the violation of it.”<<

          This is exactly what I said and there has been no editing of it in either post I said it in. The word ONLY was never even used!

          Now who looks like the liar?

          • Raylusk

            Left it up to the States says that only the States can do it. Quit with your lying.

          • BajaDreamer

            “and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states…” is in no way, shape, or form exclusionary of the federal government dinggleberry.
            The ONLY one who has lied here at all is you. But you go right on ahead with that if it pleases you.

          • Joshua

            OH geeze, typical right wing whack job trying to twist words into something that was never said or even implied.

            Sadly, you people are a pathetic lot too. The fundamental issue here is that you morons posting believe you are right, end of discussion, and that everyone else is inferior and somehow less worthy. Not only is that attitude and view extraordinarily un-American, it is also dangerous.

          • BajaDreamer

            I wasn’t the one who was twisting words and lying about it. Raylusk clearly was. Lying to make a point automatically makes the other’s argument inferior. It’s sad that you can’t see that or at least won’t admit to it. That is truly “un-American”, and even more dangerous.

  • Ward Damon Hubbard

    As a Californian, It is refreshing to heard such good new, that there are politicians, such as yourself Governor, who by action and deed, believe it is a privilege to serve the public, and the oath that was taken, I am one of many who feel that the republic and constitutional authority, has been suspended by the patriot act, and this nation is on the edge, to hear and read, what you have done in your state Idaho, is very welcomed new, to myself and many American across the land, my own senator Feinstein, is doing her very best to end the republic as we have come to know it, currently she is petitioning the White House on firearms, and here, confiscation has started, so what you have done by action and deed, to keep this nation as the foundering fathers intended it to be, and for that Governor Butch Otter of Idaho, this American thanks you.

    • Raylusk

      There is no confiscation of guns in California. You gun nuts are pathetic liars.

      • the one
        • BajaDreamer

          Just ignore this little POS. He’s already proven himself to be a liar several times here while claiming that others are doing so. He’s got his panties twisted so tightly into his crack now that if he doesn’t fix it he’ll lose circulation and his @$$ will eventually fall off!

          • the one

            Sorry Baja,

            I am compelled to tell the truth and give facts instead of rumors and lies. The body of evidence for the real reasons for gun control is most obvious.

          • BajaDreamer

            I understand bud. I’m just finally learning not to waste as much time on people like him.

          • the one

            They are frustrating in the extreme but you must never let emotion take control of the higher brain functions. They excel at the emotional argument and fail when logic and fact are employed. Let them rant and rail at their own failures of conscience and intellect…

          • BajaDreamer

            True, however some of my most logical and cogent argument come when railing at them. ;-)

        • qmack

          So you guys are in favor of felons and the mentally ill keeping their firearms?

          • the one

            When you cannot refute the evidence then you attack the messenger? This has always been a tactic of the communists.

        • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

          Wow! You are bitter!

          • the one

            Not bitter… Accurate. I do not go around telling lies like commie Teabaggers like you.

      • Ward Damon Hubbard

        @ Raylusk, Perhaps the fact that you are not an firearms enthusiast, speaks to the fact of you being mistaken about confiscation, in Los Angles County, a task force of ATF and County Sheriffs are confiscating firearms, not because the firearm is illegal, rather because the individuals, are not allowed to own firearms, for a variety of reasons, as well as offering a buy back program, and as for a “Gun Nut” it is clear, that you have never been in a situation where for one reason or another, that you feared for your safety, or the safety of your loved ones from something, or someone, and know what comfort it is to have a weapon, with a fully loaded clip, within reach, that has the capability of stopping that threat from doing you, or those you may love from harm, and in this great country, that is your choice. my choice however, is different, because I believe that, should the unthinkable happen, your choice would make you a victim, or worse, and what I mean by that, there are those, who have made the same choice as you, that would be turning in their friends and their family for a bowl of rice, while my choice, on the other hand, would at least, give me and mine, a fighting chance, the second amendment, is second for a reason, only those who want to chance this republic, change the constitutional authority, see firearms as a threat, to an enthusiast firearms are a tool, to provide and to protect, and in these times, our republic is quite frankly on the edge, the patriot act, has suspended our constitution, and civil rights, and like a snow ball turning into an avalanche, we as a nation now have, a suedo-police state, DHS, being stripped searched by the TSA in order to fly, NDAA, NSA in all it’s bastard forms, police brutality spreading across this land like a wildfire, I have been around badges and firearm all my like, and you can ask any retired cop, they will tell you like it is, most are worried at what they see, and concerned about the state of the union, and it’s future, and if all of this, is your definition of a gun nut, then thank you very much

        • Raylusk

          First I recently retired after serving as a firefighter for 31 years. During that time I faced several emergencies where those that shouldn’t has a gun threatened my life. This is in addition to all the emergencies I faced where I risk my life to help others. I am not a novice when it comes to facing danger.

          Second there are many states that don’t require background checks of people purchasing guns in certain venues. Congress tried to fix this last year by adopting a nationwide universal background check system but this was killed by a few “gun nut” politicians that were more afraid of losing an election then doing the right thing. They are cowards. Those that support these politicians I would label as gun nuts because they refuse to make sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. Would this have solved our gun problem? No but it was a start. We should also adopt laws that require all gun owners to go through regular training that teaches them how to properly handle and maintain their guns and more importantly how to properly secure them. Almost every week we hear about an accidental shooting involving either children that found a gun laying around that was left unsecured by a so called responsible gun owner. These gun owners should be prosecuted and laws should be passed to hold them accountable.

          I own both a rifle and a handgun. I bought my adult daughter a handgun. I’m not against owning guns, I’m against laws that stop us from keeping guns away from people that shouldn’t own them. This includes the mentally ill and criminals. A universal background check would help and so would holding those gun owners that don’t take the proper precautions to secure their guns so that they don’t fall into the wrong hands. Those that oppose this I label as gun nuts. I’m sorry if that offends you our other people but we need to address what is the reality of guns in this society and we can’t because even reasonable solutions are opposed by the gun nuts driven by the NRA. Even the NRA at one time supported universal background checks but has become so infected by gun nuts that they now have changed their position.

          As far as some of the government actions you describe I agree with you. I opposed the Patriot Act when it was enacted under Bush and I let my Congressional reps know. I also oppose Obama in expanding the role of the NSA.

          Gun nuts have not offered any viable solutions to our problems they just protest every reasonable action. This legislation in Idaho is an example of that. All they care about is the free flow of guns and never want to deal with the consequences of those guns.

          Finally why would anyone oppose law enforcement confiscating guns from those that legally aren’t allowed to own them? Law enforcement is supposed to enforce our laws and supposed to help keep predators and the mentally ill from possessing guns.

  • http://www.warddamon.com Michael J Posner

    So in the 1950s Alabama could pass a law banning enforcement of all federal laws requiring integration? Why didn’t the states try this in 1858? Because when these states became part of the Union they gave up some rights and I believe that these type laws will be found unconstitutional very easily.

    • Lilywhiteazz

      Pussy

      • http://www.warddamon.com Michael J Posner

        This is the best you got? Or you like cats? I guess facts are too hard for you to handle. P.S. I bet I own more guns than you do.

        • the one

          I like pussy…

    • Guest

      I’m not sure why you’re asking this question. Did you not read the article? It’s covered already in it. Don’t forget to check the links included in the article for further information, which you appear to want. SCOTUS has already weighed in on the matter, so as for finding it unconstitutional…they’ve already done quite the opposite in finding it constitutional, in court cases as recent as the 1990s.

      • UtahTwisted

        Read article 6 of your Constitution (supremacy clause). This Idaho law says the Idaho Constitution takes precedence over the U.S. Constitution – that, my friend it unconstitutional on its face.

        • BajaDreamer

          I have. Here it is explained.
          ———————————-

          Main article: Supremacy Clause

          Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.
          ———————————–

          Since the SCOTUS has already decided that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states, this new Idaho law is in support of the Constitution, not the violation of it.

          Nice try though.

          • Raylusk

            Actually the Supreme Court didn’t do exactly what you claimed. They didn’t say part of the interpretation and certain restrictions are up to the states. They said certain restrictions could be applied but they never said that only the States could provide those restrictions. Quit trying to lie to make your point.

          • BajaDreamer

            And this from a person who has already told a demonstrable bold faced lie about something I wrote here? Oh please……

            Once again: As I already pointed out to your lying @$$, at NO time did I EVER use the word ONLY or even imply it.

            Try actually comprehending the words you read without adding to them in your liberally biased fervor!

          • Raylusk

            Yes moron you said it by making the claim the Supreme Court left “certain restrictions up to the states” you are excluding the Federal Government from doing that. Now quit lying for once in your life.

          • BajaDreamer

            WOW!!!
            It is absolutely mind boggling how you can interpret “the Supreme Court left “certain restrictions up to the states” to mean that the federal government is somehow excluded from doing so! I have to suppose this delusional interpretation on you part was brought on by some sort of delusional dysfunction, likely the same one that makes you a compulsive liar. That seems to be a typically liberal affliction.

          • Raylusk

            Then you need to take what you wrote to an English professor. You clearly don’t know how to write with precision and should probably stop commenting until you take some writing classes.

          • BajaDreamer

            What I wrote was just fine and you seem to be the sole @$$hat making that interpretation of it.
            Might I suggest you take an adult remedial reading class? That is if you are old enough to qualify as an “adult”.

          • Raylusk

            And another lie by you. I’m not the only one to comment on you trying to spin out of what you clearly said. In fact you even commented to that person and then after make this comment saying I’m the only one. Liar.

            By the way why are you afraid to show your comment to an English professor? Because you know you are lying through your teeth. Piss off. I’m done taking to a liar that refuses to take responsibility.

          • BajaDreamer

            He wasn’t the one saying that I said “ONLY”. That was all you slick. That was your first lie.
            Then you said something about being all done or leaving. Was that lie number two or number three from you? I’m losing count.
            I also never said anywhere that I was afraid to show an English professor anything at all (Lie number 3 or 4 now?) I just don’t happen to have one handy.

    • Enough is Enough

      No, the Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government. The very statement “gave up some rights” should shake every American to their core. Unfortunately, too many are more than willing to give up their rights.

      • Raylusk

        Actually you are full of crap. The Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation failed because they gave too much power to the States and no power to the Federal Government. The Constitution had to be written our we would now just be a collection of 50 separate countries. You people don’t understand history.

    • BajaDreamer

      For them to be found “unconstitutional” they have to be in violation of the constitution. It seems to me that this law actually protects a constitutional right. Can you say how you believe otherwise?

      • Raylusk

        Yeah I can say. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms isn’t absolute. No matter how you gun nuts try to claim it is, it is not. Get over it.

        • BajaDreamer

          Get a clue.
          They have ruled that it is not absolute as far as what sort of weapons may be owned, such as those reasonably prohibited under the National Firearms Act of 1934. But their decision concerning Washington DC’s draconian gun laws clearly said that the individual has the right to own a firearm, and that it is absolute. Even the more liberal 9th circuit court recently overturned Klownifornika’s concealed carry law(s) as being too restrictive on and individual’s 2nd Amendment rights.
          Sorry you don’t like that very much

      • NFA1934

        “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.”

        How does someone wanting to purchase an unlimited amount of guns represent a well-regulated militia? Why not a rocket launcher? Why not a M1A1 Abrams tank? Why not a fully-automatic M-16? Why have background checks? Why prevent felons from going to a gun store and stocking up?

        Why are some people so willing to skip the “well-regulated militia” part and go straight to the “bear arms” part?

        • BajaDreamer

          Now you are just being silly and asinine in your comments. Those things are already restricted and have been for quite some time.
          Try making a reasonable argument wouldja please?

        • dusel1

          Why not?

        • dusel1

          When the government takes away all of your armament, whatever it is, you will be defenseless and unable to form a militia. Try defending your family and your property with a slingshot.

        • http://www.warddamon.com Michael J Posner

          Actually for 200 years this issue was debated, but in 2008 the Supreme Court stated that this means everyone has right not just militia, so its now settled law. They did say that reasonable regulation is permitted. Its like yelling fire in a crowded theater, it is impermissible speech despite the 1st Amendment

        • Ayatollyahso

          Actually there was a SCOTUS decision that weighed in on banning short barrelled(sawed off) shotguns Because: paraphrasing(” they served no recognized military purpose”).In that case Why not rocket launchers? See historically you banners are on the wrong side of this argument. push comes to shove the constitution is quite clear on the reasons for an armed citizenry ;no matter what “Feinstein and the Chicago funky bunch are smoking.

  • LadyRedMane

    Butch Otter was the first of the 50 governors to stand against obamacare as well. He definitely has the backbone many are lacking!

    • UtahTwisted

      They call stupid backbone now? Hum – who knew?

      • Enough is Enough

        No, we call stupid progressive now.

        • cmorplante

          Nah, I still call stupid, stupid.

    • Montgomery Scott

      @ LadyRedMane;
      You are INCORRECT.
      http://gov.idaho.gov/priorities/Exchange.html
      Ol’ BUTCH IS PANDERING, AGAIN.
      Ever since the EPA sued him for diverting water on his property, he’s been in the control of the Statists. Heck, it might go back even further (like his DUI)…

  • UtahTwisted

    Constitution be damned right? What an idiot.

    • Enough is Enough

      Apparently. It’s sad that you don’t support the Second Amendment to our Constitution. It’s also sad that you, and others like you, appear to support an all powerful federal government and powerless states.

      • Raylusk

        It’s sad that you don’t understand what the Constitution really says.

        • Joshua

          Right? Apparently these idiots feel slavery was fair and women not voting was right too. You know, things not included at the beginning.

          • LG

            Raylusk and Joshua: It’s not? What’s next, women will be allowed to drive cars? Haha, that’ll be the day… Oh no, please don’t be offended! Sorry, I forgot you actually think all “these idiots” think this way. It’ll be ok, you’re sensitive. My point is, there’s a certain person up in the office who thinks he can do away with whatever’s written on a piece of paper because he knows what’s good for us. The point of the Consitution is to keep people from doing this. Let the PEOPLE decide what’s right for themselves, hopefully it works out. What’s really scary is there’s people like both of you out there that back him up in doing it. How many more of you backwards hippies are out there? Your views make it seem to the common person (correct person, I might add) that you’re saying “Why not just make this country a dictatorial cult? If you protest, you die…any objections?” I hope I have sparked something worth getting angry about, I love pissing you people off… P.S. I own guns too. Damn, look at the fire in your eyes!

          • qmack

            Which president signed an assault weapons ban again? And which one signed a bill allowing people to once again carry in national forests?

      • UtahTwisted

        Have you read the Constitution. I support the whole thing not just on3e amendment. (Read the supremacy clause, article 6)

        • cmorplante

          “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance of it…….shall be the Supreme Law if the Land”. Do you know what “in pursuance of it” means? It means that only laws that pertain to the enumerated powers set forth are the supreme law of the land.

    • BajaDreamer

      The ONLY one who has said or acted in a “Constitution be damned” manner at all is the Obamessiah. Were it not for him and his minions such a law would not have been necessary.

      • Raylusk

        What exactly has the President done to take away any of your gun rights. Nothing idiot.

        • BajaDreamer

          Now see? There you go again, making up things I didn’t say and lying about it. Show me where I said he had acted in a “constitution be damned manner” concerning gun rights you imbecile. His unconstitutional actions in general on a variety of things have been well documented whether you like it or not.
          What your Obamessiah HAS done was to propose draconian gun laws and restrictions that even those in Congress with brown noses from fawning over him were loathe to condone or vote in favor of. Know why? Because they all wanted to keep their jobs, that’s why!

          • Raylusk

            We are talking about gun rights. Nothing else. If you can’t have your comment pertain to the subject then piss off. I’m sick and tired of you dancing and spinning. You are a complete moron.

          • BajaDreamer

            I really hate to point this out to you dingleberry, but what I just said there IS about gun rights. That should be plain enough for even a lying sack of $h!7 like you to understand. The lack of support from even the Democrats in the house and the senate for Obama’s proposed anti gun legislation is entirely on point.
            You want to get all pissy about things and leave? Go for it. I doubt anyone here will miss you much.

    • dusel1

      ……. shall not be infringed.”

      • Raylusk

        Well regulated.

        • the one

          Well regulated meant training not rules. Read the federalist papers and stop listening to HGI and the Brady bunch.

        • Ayatollyahso

          “Efficient,effective, or well equipped”; “smoothly functioning”take your pick: old(1700′s) mechanical clocks and steam engines had “REGULATORS” to make them smooth running and accurate .It has nothing to do with laws or “govt. regulations”. Sure as hell doesn’t mention”hunting” or sporting purposes!!!!!!!!
          I.e. the Schumerism:”how many rounds do you NEED to kill a deer?”

          GTFO!

        • Cal Brabandt

          I advise you to read the writings and speeches of the founders to learn the meaning of the terms “well regulated” and “militia.” They do not mean what the Brady bunch wants you to to think they mean. The militia was ubiquitous to the founders. It simply meant an armed people in the context of protecting freedom. “the one’s” reply to your post is correct, but “well regulated” can also be translated into modern language as “proficient” or “efficacious.” Of course the founders intentions also require training and competency in arms and a readily available or ubiquitous supply of arms. Furthermore, they intended that the arms must be comparable to the arms borne by a nation’s infantry and soldiers. (This is protected by the strongest verbiage and syntax possible in the “shall not be infringed” part).

          The founder’s plan to preserve and protect liberty is equally important today. If you don’t believe it is, you are suffering from a severe case of “normalcy bias.” 5000 years of civilization proves your notion to be wrong!

      • UtahTwisted

        If Congress makes an unconstitutional law it does not need to be followed. When a State INTENTIONALLY makes a unconstitutional law, they are just being idiots. (Read the supremacy clause Article VI)

        • Cliff Wells

          The relevant bit of the Supremacy clause is this:

          THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

          Note the words in emphasis.

          So unless the federal law is itself Constitutional (and no federal gun law is, since gun laws are not an enumerated power), then the Supremacy Clause does not apply. Any rights not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states and the people. End of story.

    • Cliff Wells

      The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

      Exactly which part of the Constitution grants the Federal government power to enact gun laws of any sort? The only possible one would be interstate commerce, but that cannot possibly limit ownership nor intrastate sales. That’s without even considering the Second Amendment.

      Further, the Tenth Amendment also allows for states to refuse to enact federal laws. This has been held up by several separate Supreme Court decisions.

      But hey, some guy on the internet, I’m sure your definition of “Constitutional” supercedes that of the Supreme Court or even the Constitution itself.

  • Nys Parkie

    LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE !!…..

  • Tim

    This isn’t nullification. The bill doesn’t say that federal gun laws don’t apply in Idaho. It says that state and local officials in Idaho can’t enforce federal gun laws. But there is no challenge to the federal government’s authorty to enforce the laws through its own agencies.

    • Cal Brabandt

      The Tenth Amendment Center defines nullification as follows:

      “Nullification:
      Any act or set of acts which renders a law null, void or just unenforceable.”

      It considers federal law to be unenforceable without cooperation from state and local law enforcement agencies. I believe the assertion is true.

      http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/#nullification

  • Tim

    I think we need more name calling and ‘experts’ interpreting the law…

  • Shami-Amourae

    I’m proud to be an Idahoan!

  • Tootrue4you

    And the little libbies start throwing a tantrum!

    • UtahTwisted

      I’m not (necessarily) a liberal – but as a proud American patriot, combat veteran, I am appalled that so many think this UNCONSTITUTIOANL law is a good thing. I fought for my Country – not a bunch of nuts who don’t even know what their founding documents say.

      • cmorplante

        Elaborate, please. Unconstitutional? Why. Not a good thing? Why. What do our founding documents say regarding this?

        • UtahTwisted

          The supremacy clause (article 6). States cannot pass a law that says they supersede the federal government – that is unconstitutional.

      • Cliff Wells

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Forced_participation_or_commandeering

        It is a violation of the Constitution for the Federal Government to force a state to enact a Federal law. They can try to entice them to assist, but they cannot compel them.

        Given that the article quoted another Supreme Court decision stating specifically that nullification is Constitutional, I can only presume that you received brain-damage while serving your country. I’m sorry to hear that. Maybe next time, before you loudly misspell the word “constitutional”, you’ll try reading it first. Or hell, just learn to use Google.

        • UtahTwisted

          You are mixing up ideas. The federal government cannot force a state to comply with a law UNLESS there is a constitutional basis for it, such as the commerce clause or necessary and proper clause, or the 14th Amendment. Please see Missouri v. Holland for example. You are confusing ideas such as receipt of highway funds like South Dakota v. Dole.

          I know what I’m talking about. Sorry, but “nullification” is not – and never was constitutional. Please proved a case that illustrates that point. Good luck

          • Cliff Wells

            http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

            The crux here is constitutional. If the state’s position is that Federal gun laws (and executive orders) are unconstitional, then nullification is valid.

            As far as the whether nullification is constitutional, tell it to Thomas Jefferson.

      • Philip Robert

        Combat Veteran? What Unit did you serve in. What engagements?

        • UtahTwisted

          Iraq & Afghanistan x 2 – but so what. My being right – which I am – is not based on my service (30 years btw, 25 active duty, CSM)

      • Roy Farber

        I think you are talking about the laws that the Federal Government are trying to perpetrate on the American people. I would certainly hope that you aren’t talking about this awesome “nullification” law that is taking effect in Idaho.

      • bobooow

        The founding Documents as well as the founding fathers themselves. Spelled out pretty clearly that the federal government is an entity created to NOT have any form of absolute authority even in an optimal situation were the federal government wasn’t as corrupt and decayed, and exhibiting a blatant disregard for our constitution and the rights of the states and the rights of the people. Such as our own is. No it was created to govern the states. And the states are to govern the people. And when need be to put the federal government in check. The Fed is Not to exhirt supreme and final say over anybody and everthing in the nation. Especially in a situation where they are outright violating the constitution. Such as passing an erroneous federal firearm legislation. Most likely in an unconstitutional manner. And violating the constitution yet again by selectively overturning a states right to nullify such an order. So please. Tell me how it is the state that is the bad guy in this situation?

        • Rog

          Jeeesh, the level of ignorance regarding our form of government here is appalling. No, the federal government was NOT created to “govern the states.” Where on earth did you hear that one? It was created by the states to handle external matters, issues pertaining to the states relationships with foriegn countries and trade therewith. A unified front, so to speak. Can the created be superior to the created? Certainly not.

          If you will kindly have a look at Art.1 sec. 8 of the organic constitution you will see a list of enumerated powers. These are the specific powers granted to the general government BY the states. Stuff like establish uniform naturalization standards, uniform weights and measures, postal roads and establish a navy etc. You will notice federal taxing authority is spelled out here. The federal government has the power to impose duties, imposts and excise taxes. Each of these taxes are external in nature. Duties and imposts have to do with foreign trade and excises are a tax on the exercise a federal privilege, such as foreign company doing business within the several states. Direct taxation, a tax on the states, is discussed elsewhere.

          You will see nothing there concerning the regulation of firearms, among other powers not granted, and even if there were such a clause that power would be external in nature, that is, concerning importation of such. An FFL is a license to engage in foreign trade. Americans have been tricked into believing the federal government has ANY authority to restrict in any way the ownership, sale or transfer of firearms within the several states party to the constitution. This law in Idaho is simply a reiteration, by the states, of the powers reserved to the states and NOT granted to the federal government.

          Of course the federal courts will try to defend the usurpation of powers not granted to the federal government by declaring nullification void. That is an invalid claim and the states are just now refuting that claim. Good for them.

          • UtahTwisted

            NO NO NO! The States did NOT “create” the Federal Government! Read the first three words – they are even written in super large script – they mean something. The PEOPLE created the Federal Government.

        • UtahTwisted

          First of all, what you’ve written is incredibly difficult to understand, is English your second language?

          Second, you are VERY mistaken on your basic knowledge of the Constitution, our founding, and the history from that founding.

          What are the first three words of the Constitution?

          Please read article 6 of the Constitution for the order of supremacy.

          States CANNOT nullify anything. Please see any number of Supreme Court decisions, may I suggest McClough v. Maryland or Missouri v. Holland

  • Edward Aspinall

    I LOVE IDAHO!!!!

  • railroadjim

    I live in Oregon but I’m moving back to Idaho. Yipeeeee!

  • Bryant

    400 hundred years ago a group of God fearing people were ooressed by their government for their harmless beliefs. These people sacrificed everything and left The security of their home not knowing where they would get their next meal let alone how they would advance their stays in life. They mad a a long and almost impossibly dangerous journey across the Atlantic ocean to land in a wilderness full of unknown dangers. From scratch, the built their own communities and eventually cities. Once they saw these peoples’ resolve and success the old government who initially forced them from their homes decided to step in and take advantage of their hard work and sacrifice. Once this government started coming into their homes, eating their food and most likely sexually assaulting their daughters, the People took it personal. They weren’t going to leave this time. They were going to fight and make a stand. The smartest and brightest of them drafted a declaration of independence and after winning the war and losing many of their family members they decided to write up a Bill of Rights to help their decendents remember and understand what frconfiscationis and what it takes to protect it. These rights were not suggestions are laws that were up for debate, change or scrutiny. They were unalienable freedoms guaranteed by God, creator of everythi g, to every responsible human being. Our forefathers knew and understood that people would get complacent and/or not understand how and why it was their responsibility to protect their own freedom so that’s why they put the 2nd amendment in this Bill of Rights. They also knew that in order to take and keep any rights away from people, they had to first take away what the people use to protect their rights. Arms. That why its the only right that specifically says it shall not be limited or encroached upon. Those who believe that the government should make laws for registration, limitation or confiscation of any type of weapon are the ones who need to be reminded of what happens when you hand over control of your own safety to someone or something else.

    • Marky Michaels

      The people of the Ukraine would be fighting their own battle right now had they not been disarmed. OLiar made a deal a long time ago.
      http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

  • man50

    The People of Connecticut will be holding their Second Annual Connecticut Gun Rights Rally on Saturday April 5th, 2014 at the State Capitol in Hartford commencing at noon. The event is posted on Facebook as the “Connecticut Gun Rights Rally”. This has turned into a national event withe people from many states attending. Please show your support by clicking on the “Going” button even if you can’t attend.

    • Leslie James

      So let me get this straight. Click on the Going button even if we’re not? And more importantly people from other states will be there?! I’m fairly certain our State Police will hear about this.

  • Charles

    If I ever get to retire, I have always thought Boise environs would be a good place to do it. An Oregonian, now Missourian, considering being an Idahoan. I have family in that area and have been in Idaho many times. I like it there.

  • keith

    I wish UTAH would do this but not with the RINO we got.

  • Cal Brabandt

    It’s a start, but the meaning of the carefully selected word, “infringed” denotes the strongest possible protection for the right. ANYTHING is an infringement! So when will we see state nullification for all the past unconstitutional firearms laws (ie., all of them)?

  • 4570

    Somewhere, Vicky and Sammy Weaver are smiling.

  • bruceapilot

    I wanna move to Driggs.

  • docreid

    Come on Texas…..it’s time to get with the program……

    • Jason Schafer

      Can’t even open carry in Texas A handgun.

      • SpudFarmer

        It’s harder in Boise than you’d think.

    • Puresnow

      Natural News
      5-12-2013
      “In a vote of 100-47, the Texas House recently approved a bill aimed at stopping new federal laws and regulations concerning firearms within the state’s boundaries. The legislation, HB 1076, introduced by Rep. Steve Toth, a Republican, would require that Texas refuse to enforce any new gun control laws or regulations enacted after Jan. 1, 2013:
      In part, HB 1076 reads:
      An entity described by Subsection (a) may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity enforces, or by consistent action allows the enforcement of, a federal statute, order, rule or regulation enacted on or after January 1, 2013 that purports to regulate a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction or other regulation, such as capacity or size limitation, a registration requirement or a background check, that does not exist under the laws of this state.”

  • Stagester

    So proud of my new home state of Idaho! Yeah Feds now you know where I live come get me!

  • Do You Even Law?

    You should really learn the difference between uncooperative federalism (what this is) and nullification (what this is not).

  • Bryant

    Typing on my phone was a major fail so I redid
    it on my computer.

    400 hundred years ago, a group of God
    fearing people were oppressed by their government for their harmless beliefs.
    These people sacrificed everything and left the security of their homes not
    knowing where they would get their next meal let alone how they would advance
    their status in life. They set out on a long and almost impossibly dangerous
    journey across the Atlantic Ocean to land in a wilderness full of unknown
    dangers. From scratch, they built their own communities and eventually
    functioning cities. Once they saw these peoples’ resolve and success the old
    government, who initially forced them from their homes, decided to step in and
    take advantage of their hard work and sacrifice. Once this government started
    coming into their homes, eating their food and most likely sexually assaulting
    their daughters, the People took it personal. They weren’t going to leave this
    time. They were going to fight and make a stand. The smartest and brightest of
    them drafted a declaration of independence and after winning the war and losing
    many of their family members they decided to write up a Bill of Rights to help
    their descendants remember and understand what freedom is and what it takes to
    protect it. These rights were NOT suggestions or laws that were up for debate,
    change or scrutiny. They were clearly stated unalienable freedoms guaranteed by
    God, the creator of everything, to every responsible human being. Our
    forefathers knew and understood that people would get complacent and/or not
    understand how and why it was their responsibility to protect their own freedom.
    Just because we have electronic technology today does not mean that they were
    not as intelligent as we are today. I believe they were sharper in many ways.
    They knew we would have the weapon technology we have today just like we know
    there will be ray guns with unlimited ammo in the future. So they put the 2nd
    amendment in this Bill of Rights and made sure, above all the other rights, to
    clearly state that it should not be limited or encroached upon by anyone. Well
    regulated meant organized, ready and responsible. Those who believe that the
    government should make laws for registration, limitation or confiscation of any
    type of weapon are the ones who need to be reminded of what happens when you hand
    over control of your own safety to someone or something else.

  • watchdogmom

    You shine Idaho!!! The Constitution is “thee Sacred Law of the Land” and must be upheld.

  • IDAHO FOR LIBERTY

    Russ Fultcher for Idaho Govener he won’t wait tell the last minute to sign bills

  • Captiosus

    The minute this is challenged in Federal court, it will be overturned. The amount of armchair Constitutional scholars in this discussion give me a chuckle. Those of us who have spent years studying the American Political system and Federal case law have a far better understanding of what the 10th Amendment does and does not provide.

    Need proof? Southern States tried this exact same strategy in the 1950s to prevent integration. Cooper v. Aaron (1958). Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board (1960). Two cases in which SCOTUS outright ruled that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law. Too recent for you? Let’s go back to 1809, when we were still a fledgling Republic: United States v. Peters (1809). Guess what SCOTUS ruled in that case? Oh yeah, that Pennsylvania could not nullify Federal court decisions.

    I know it’s a lot to ask, but instead of just rambling on about things you THINK you know about, do your research. Nullification has been continually struck down from 1809 to present. Legal precedent does not support this recent attempt to do it again. Enjoy your hollow victory!

    • Michael Lotfi

      Perhaps while you’re trading case law you’ll want to read Printz v. US, NFIB v. Sebelius, Prigg v. Pennsylvania and NY v. US, which all provide the legal framework for this legislation. Shallow “repudiation” does little for your case. Then again- you could always ask New York Times best selling authors and legal experts Judge Napolitano, Dr. K. Gutzman, or Thomas E. Woods.

    • Puresnow

      Idaho, Kansas and Alaska are mentioned in the article.
      However, there are more:

      Missouri Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Control
      (also Tennessee, Wyoming, and more)

      Georgia Senate votes to nullify common core
      (also Kentucky, Alabama, Arizona, and more)

      States opting out of PPACA with State Laws:
      AL, AZ, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MT, MO, NH, NC,
      ND, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY

      States nullifying Federal marijuana laws:
      CO, MN, WA, and more

      Federal law only trumps State Law if it is enforceable.

      “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
      - Abraham Lincoln

      …and Rand Paul.

    • lberns

      As long as you continue to think like a statist, this is true. Give up the superstitious belief that some people have the legitimate right and authority to rule you, and SCOTUS is revealed for what it really is: a bunch of black dress wearing thugs.

    • Tony Jordan

      I simply don’t find your argument persuasive.

    • David Wallace

      It’s a stacked deck and has been for a long time. The 2nd Amendment was incorrectly interpreted in favor of individual gun control for years by these same “scholors” only because they twisted the words, manipulated word definitions, and had the power to rule as they wanted. Those days are coming to an end and the people are speaking up. Laws don’t last long when the people don’t support them.

      • mike d

        The bill of rights are civil rights guaranteed by the creator and the context of the 2nd Amendment . The military is covered under article 3.

    • LeslieFish

      The difference here is that these laws are also defending the federal constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment. Any federal court would have to perform some serious legal back-bends to abolish laws which defend the constitution.

      When the SCOTUS knocked down Arizona’s SB 1070, its reasoning allowed for the state to *refuse to enforce any federal law* on the grounds that this would be taking to itself the duties of the federal government. So far nobody has taken this on, but we do have legal medical marijuana in this state, so it’s likely to come up any time the federals raid a local marijuana dispensary.

  • usmcmailman

    I may move to Idaho !

  • FACTS

    Federal Law is ONLY suppose to deal with commerce between the states and foreign governments. Federal Laws are NOT suppose to “reverse or challenge” Constitutional Law which ARE THE RULES of LAW unless a Constitutional Convention is established to deal with Constitutional Law challenges. Passing illegal laws that contradict Constitutional Law only waste time and money in the courts.

    Why is the US Constitution NOT a required subject in our schools? It’s because, an educated and knowing Public would challenge ALL FEDERAL LAWS that exceeded their scope and definition as laid out in the US Constitution. Ignorance and confusion is what the Feds depend on to pass bogus laws that contradict the citizen’s Rights & Freedoms! A well-armed Public that was schooled in the Constitution would never allow the existence of contradictory Federal Laws!

    • mike d

      Obama doesn’t follow that intrusive Constitution.

  • Jarhead0369

    “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
    - Abraham Lincoln

    Interesting that the greatest tyrant in American history would be quoted here. How far will the Feds be willing to go to enforce this sort of thing, and how far will the States and their citizens be willing to go when armed US Marshals, BATFE, IRS, EPA and others start busting their balls?

  • Guest

    Folks, please do some reading…this Idaho PR stunt will not stand long…states have done this repeatedly in the past and failed.
    “Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.”
    I rest my case.

    • James

      Its called the United States of America, each and every state makes up the country and in no way does the federal government control the States individual rights. Each state has the ability to take a stand against government tyranny.

      • Puresnow

        If it comes to it there is always the Sheriff as the last bastion of freedom and checks and balances, A Sheriff being the supreme authority in a county (higher than the President or Federal government) and being charged with the protection of the people.

    • David Wallace

      Only when acting within their lawful authority. The Fed has been overstepping it’s authority claiming everything under Interstate Commerce which is total BS. Probably 80% of the Fed’s claimed authority is not backed by the enumerated powers in the Constitution,

      • Charles Forry

        And then there is Lerner and Holder. BOTH are guilty in the IRS scandal. Talk about overstepping… Throw them both in prison for contempt and see how fast they start squealing.

    • nctenther

      troll or fool? Or both?

    • Puresnow

      The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

    • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

      How about you rest your idiotic mind as well. The Supremacy clause has NOTHING to do with unconstitutional actions. WOW, how stupid you are and how stupid we’ve become as a people. You are grossly ignorant of the laws and Constitutions. Who is greater… the created or the creator? You are standing on your idiocy that the created is greater than those who created the government. You better get educated… or be ready to be treated as a domestic terrorist. Please go back and drink more of your Obama treasonous, domestic terrorist KoolAid.

  • rudy

    it’s a stunt because a $1000 penalty is nothing. it should be enforced by a year or so in jail. that might mean something

  • Mick

    Idaho and most of the other intermountain states as well as a handful of southern and eastern states will ‘appear’ to position themselves against the ever encroaching cancer that is the federal government. However, this is all a ruse and is designed to give false hope and further divide this nation. You will see states attempt to secede and civil war will follow. This is all by design – you really think the PTB haven’t thought all this through? Everything that happens is for their benefit. The ones who will suffer the greatest will be the peoples of these states through famine and total suppression. The politicians will slip away as the people are lead to their slaughter. The game is being played at a much higher level.

    • nctenther

      Yeah right, because states are easier to control. No, they’d much rather have control all in one place…then there’s no need for fighting as all will comply.

    • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

      Wrong… do you really think that 150 million Americans well armed will allow this? The States have the simple power to put the Federal Government OUT of our states. It is happening all across this republic. The PTB are a bunch of weak, pathetic power hungry, idiots that are living in their ivory tower of stupidity. Come on PTB… bring it on, or shut the hell up. We have YOU and your “blood” in our sites, and YOU and your evil families are targeted because you have made yourselves such.

    • Richard StJohn

      The fact that they control our currency doesn’t mean they control us. Granted the Constitution was usurped in 1913 by the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. But the part they will never understand about the average American is the fierce spirit of independence we all carry with us. The biggest obstacle to one world government is the population of America. Free men will stand. If we have to we will fight. We will pass on to our children their birthright. It’s really that simple.

  • DougO

    I am from Idaho. I am a Veteran. I don’t claim to know all the laws. That is why we hire law enforcement, lawyers, etc. I will state, However, that I am keeping my Individual firearms and accessories, etc. Here in Idaho we have well regulated militias with the support of local law enforcement. If anyone thinks federal law out trumps Idaho’s Constitution and my Individual God given right of self protection, they are sadly mistaking. Violate my family, person, property and find out what law trumps what. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission. That’s why we seat a Jury of 12. DougO

    • Polar Vortex

      You racist bytch POS. We’ll get your guns and put your family in camps. Thanks for the post. We know who you are and where you are.

      • judenjager

        ook ook eek eek…. All you n*i66ers are good for is making noise. Low IQ is not conducive to victory. We will wipe you out .

        • Reichskanzler

          Love the name judenjager (Jew hunter) haha yes.

      • mike d

        “We” is everyone in your housing project? You ain’t going anywhere except to KFC.

      • Flypaper

        Dude, if you don’t like the Constitutional Amendments then go live somewhere else. Honestly, it wouldn’t offend the rest of us. (Troll or not)

      • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

        How about you go back to Africa where you ancestors traded your ancestors in for money… and now you suck money out of the system. You know where we are??? WONDERFUL. Please come and visit… we are well prepared with all you deserve to get!!!

    • Puresnow

      Idaho, Kansas and Alaska are mentioned in the article.
      However, there are more:

      Missouri Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Control
      (also Tennessee, Wyoming, and more)

      Georgia Senate votes to nullify common core
      (also Kentucky, Alabama, Arizona, and more)

      States opting out of PPACA with State Laws:
      AL, AZ, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MT, MO, NH, NC,
      ND, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY

      States nullifying Federal marijuana laws:
      CO, MN, WA, and more

      Federal law only trumps State Law if it is enforceable.

      “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
      - Abraham Lincoln

      …and Rand Paul.

  • Polar Vortex

    I am a BLACK FEDERAL EMPLOYEE…..

    All you RACIST WHITE POS’s. The federal government is buying MILLIONS of rounds of ammo. We are coming for you, your families, and your guns.

    Camps are finished, cheap caskets have been ordered. WE WILL COME FOR YOU.

    • guest

      Come on, you POS gov’t nipple sucking trash. We have been buying up ammo as well and you will fit in the caskets just as well.

    • Mario Scarabuchi

      come and get me baboon man

    • mike d

      The only reason you would knock down a persons door would be if they had a bucket of Kentucky fried chicken and fresh watermelon on the kitchen table.

    • bobfairlane

      ROFL Troll

      • Polar Vortex

        LOL. Yeah, don’t take much to get them riled up.

    • Defiant

      LOL! Troll.

      • Polar Vortex

        LOL. just imagine if I said I got a white woman.

    • John Mac

      Well as Sargent York said,”If they be a catchin me some of them are gonna be mighty sorry.”

    • chris

      Come to Idaho then. ;)

    • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

      GREAT. And… your “federal” families are known because of idiots like YOU who we’ve been tracking for years… and you can come after us, but guess what happens because we know where YOU live?????????

    • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0ZjLeS_EDPvr5sryM71iRQ nunya fknbsness

      you will die , your families will die…

      make no mistake.

      • HarpandPopShow

        hahahhahaha! weak

    • Richard StJohn

      More likely your a sexually frustrated 13 year old with his first computer. DHS ordered 1.6 billion rounds of hollow points. Any fed would know that. The cheap caskets are actually coffin liners used to keep the ground from collapsing as the coffin deteriorates..Stop believing everything you see on TV even if Jesse Ventura is there to show it to you. BTW Polar Vortex is a really stupid name as the poles are capped with ice.

      • Polar Vortex

        You are of no real value to the state and you are a threat to a globally integrated economy and new socioeconomic fabric. The state is forever and you are a resources with diminishing value.

        • Doc Holliday

          Ignorance is the anethstetic for arrogance!

    • Kenny

      I’m a black retired Army veteran and Department of Defense/Department of Army federal employee. The federal government is not coming for anyone. Their is no FEMA camps. You’ve lost your damn mind!

      • Polar Vortex

        ain’t you got a lawn to stand on?

  • Joseph

    Anti-comandeering is not nullification.

  • CRASH

    polar vortex,we will be waiting for you :)

    • Polar Vortex

      You will be in a camp, very soon.

  • NYSAFEACT

    Why is the fact that you are a black federal employee even pertinent info? No body cares who you are or where you work Polar!!! Fact Is you are the minority in more ways than one! Majority of the country still believes that private citizens owning firearms is patriotic and NECESSARY! You sir are the “poster boy” for why millions of people in this great country own such items. I personally know hundreds of individuals, of many races and backgrounds, to include women, who own private firearms. Most of which are resourceful enough to manufacture their own ammunition…..and do! So just think about that for a while!!! And be careful what you wish for!!! We shall not be infringed!

    • chestnuthill

      Relax, he was trolling.

    • Polar Vortex

      Do you think yourself. We have people EVERYWHERE…..THIS IS NOT A GAME and I am NOT A TROLL. You can surrender your guns and comply with the new order or we will remove them from your COLD DEAD HANDS. Freedom is a CURSE. The government will give you guidance and direction. Families are irrelevant. We are all comrades. Religion WILL BE DESTROYED.

  • JSOC-John

    Polar Vortex is probably some fat slob that lives in his moms basement and has never touched any kind of firearm bigger than a bb gun. Even that makes him nervous. The ignorance shows through in his postings. He probably collects welfare which is why he is hung on the fed’s tit.

    • Polar Vortex

      Sir, I am a VETERAN AND A PATRIOT. I have seen the evil of giving your kind too much freedom. You are a danger to the new order. Google FEMA CAMPS……your new home.

      • james

        You are not a patriot.

      • Doc Holliday

        Those camps will be your home as well…you just don’t see it yet.

  • James Lucas

    this polar vortex no fed but he taiks just like a loony- toon left wing nut, he is a role player.

    • Polar Vortex

      FEMA camps are already waiting for occupants. your kind must be eradicated.

  • T.D Loves Guns

    Yay! More Freedom please.

  • Charles Forry

    Awesome…. Here’s an idea… Make the FED’s buy a PERMIT to even be IN THE STATE. That way you know why they are there ( DEA, FBI, CIA, ATF, NSA)and what they are doing.

  • david

    The drone state says yes …lol…. you can have your gun…he haw heee haww

    • Prosta Chudo

      American state. we keep our guns to shoot your unlawful, mafia-style, federal agents when they try to force things like obamacare on us. Hard to say he haw with a barrel in your mouth. The second amendment is not for hunting. unless it’s hunting tyrannical agents of an unconstitutional government. let freedom ring like a gun blast going off inches from your ear

      • david

        I think you completely missed my point there bud. I really makes alot of sense to give the people their guns rights and have them build drones to bomb them with at the same time. And on another thought their mouth, some folks folks don’t take threats lightly.

        • Prosta Chudo

          :) Youtube 3d printing drones and the tech in that. cant reach as high as them yet, but this is doable and done right now also see FPSRussia on youtube he has a video of something similar to what can be done for under $300

        • Prosta Chudo

          I guarantee you I will shoot any person who attempts to disarm my country.

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Excellent! It has a penalty assessable to those that try and force State/Local muni-corp agents to capitulate to the federal “order”.

  • cooperbry

    Excellent!

  • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

    Who will run with this? Who will do THIS at their LOCAL, county or city level? get with it people… create YOUR area a Liberty Zone, and QUIT the idiocy of corrupt governments… libertyzone.org

    • kinjirurm

      LOL, all bark, no bite.

  • kinjirurm

    Great! A meaningless piece of law was passed! All cheer your tax dollars being wasted!

    • Glen Herbert

      I wish we had more people that would say that about the President.

    • wmkabrich

      A meaningless piece of law was passed!

      We are not talking about DemocratCare here we are talking about our rights.

  • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0ZjLeS_EDPvr5sryM71iRQ nunya fknbsness

    research the act of 1871…

    the usa is a corporation.

    • Polar Vortex

      and you are a DEPRECIABLE ASSET with DIMINISHING VALUE TO THE STATE. why should you be allowed to exist?

    • http://www.americanusconstitution.com/ Don Thayer

      The Act doesn’t SAY that the US is a corporation, and Congress can’t nullify the Constitution, only “we the people” can – through the Article 5 process.

  • Polar Vortex

    FEMA camps are ready for you GUN NUTS. United Nations forces from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe are already in route. Cling to your guns and bible if you want to. Your day of judgement is at hand. You have made a choice…….YOUR COLD DEAD HANDS……YEP.

    • Richard Einstein

      There will be a gun behind every blade of grass to mow them down and treasonous scumbags such as yourself will also be easy targets. Although you are not worth the price of a bullet, the damage you can cause is extensive so expect some hot lead to come your way in the near future.

      • Ogrrre

        And those blue helmets make dandy targets.

        • Polar Vortex

          A shell full of mustard gas will burn you and your grass.

    • Doc Holliday

      Those same camps are ready for you as well you just don’t know it…yet!

      • Calvinius

        Those camps don’t exist, dumbfuck.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          How is sleeping the American Dream working out for you? Do you think you’ll wake up to the American Reality someday, that all the propaganda you’ve been fed by Big Brother is wrong?

    • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

      You’re either playing the troll or you are one of the most phenomenally idiotic persons ever to post on a political thread, not to mention outright treasonous.

      • Polar Vortex

        I am no troll. I long to destroy your kind. You are a threat to the future of humanity. You’re disposable and expendable.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          You’ve got it backwards, but that’s not surprising at all considering that you’ve been propaganda programmed to be a bootlicking government apologist.

  • Kenny

    Since Americans elected an African American President, states with Republican legislatures and governors refuse to follow the law of the land (Constitution) they claim to love more than any being who is not a hardline conservative, and argue vehemently for nullifying the Constitution because they, like petulant children, cannot tolerate following rules. According to a rule in the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the land, but an inordinate number of Republican-controlled states contend that they, not the High Court, decide constitutionality of law. According to Republican states nullifying federal gun laws, they are simply adhering to the National Rifle Association as the law of the land and claim the NRA, not the Supreme Court, decides the constitutionality of federal laws and the High Courts ability to adjudicate.

    • Veronica Newman

      10th Amendment Buddy

      • Calvinius

        Supremacy clause buddy.

    • Richard Einstein

      First of all you are a moron and Obama is not an American, he is a citizen of Indonesia who has forged documents to usurp the office of President. This is an absolute, proven beyond any doubt fact.

      The 10th amendment limits the power of the federal government, leaving all power to the states and the people, not the treasonous criminals in DC.

      • Kenny

        People like you need to spayed and neutered so they won’t be able to reproduce.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          People like you immediately invalidate any argument they may have by being just as offensive (if not moreso) than the very people they seek to chastise.

      • Calvinius

        Hilarious, a psychotic Birther like you calling somebody else a moron.

    • Doc Holliday

      Ignorance is the anethstetic for arrogance. You obviously do not understand how Government works or how state government works when it comes to states rights. The universe is made up of protons neutrons and electrons, they forgot morons.

      • Kenny

        Do you thinks states should have the right to legalize slavery? Do you think states should have the right to legalize discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders? Do you think states should have the right to legalize discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Atheist, Agnostics, Buddhist, Hindus, Sikhs?

        I know how the government works, I’m a retired Army veteran, son of retired Vietnam War Air Force veteran, grandson of retired WWII Army veteran, great-grandson of African American slaves. I have white, black, Jewish family members. I also know how racism works..I know how cowardly the Klan is and how un-American and un-Christian they are. The sooner all Klan/Neo-Nazis members are dead and burning in hell the better for America.

        • bobfairlane

          LOL. A jewish negro wants to tell us what’s “UnAmerican”. ROFL.

          • Kenny

            I’m not Jewish. My sister in law is and my brother converted to Judaism. How dare you imply that Jewish people are not American. You racist piece of inbred slime!

          • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

            Pot calling the kettle black, now aren’t we? Your obvious racist bent is just as apparent as his, and therefore you have NULLIFIED yourself.

          • Kenny

            I’m racist because I call out racist people for being racist. Whatever dude.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          If you had a single shred of real military expertise you would know that nullification is upholding the very spirit of the Constitution of the United States. If you had a shred of education on the subject of nullification you would know that, for example, two of our most prominent Founding Fathers (including the Father of the Constitution himself) James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed nullification as a peaceful alternative to revolution, pointing out that not even the Supreme Court can always be trusted to follow the interests of Americans. And no, the Supreme Court is not the final word.

          The PEOPLE are the final word.

          Go READ and EDUCATE yourself before spouting populist bullshit. Amerizombies like you are the most distasteful bunch of government apologists I’ve ever seen.

  • Frank E. Licata

    Kudos and both thumbs up to Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, and others who are taking the lead to help block tyranny.

  • honestann

    The next step has to be to defend any attempts by FEDERAL goons to arrest, disarm or harm gun owners. Without that, these laudable efforts will be of no long-term significance.

  • Richard Einstein

    This law already needs to be changed. The penalty should be at least $50,000 and a minimum of five years at hard labor. $1000 is nothing to the tyrannical zionist banksters who are destroying our nation, they create money out of thin air.

    • Nic Basore

      …Hey there, Zionist Jewish conservative here (PS most Zionists are conservative) I’d like to know how uh, I’m ruining the country.

      • Richard Einstein

        The Federal Reserve and AIPAC are two branches of the zionist shadow government. They are out to destroy our nation…

        • JHall

          You anti-semite conspiracy theorists always crack me up with your insanity. :D

      • bobfairlane

        You want to spend American money and military resources on Jizzrael, and want to incarcerate white people for defying the jewish supremacists. Calling zionists “conservative” is a joke.

        • Nic Basore

          Are you mentally defective? Jewish supremacists? So you’re telling me that .05% of the populous is controlling the country? Dang, I wish I could get in on this action. I could quit doing hard manual labor! And as for Israel, truth be told, Israel honestly has a better functioning military than the U.S. does in its current state. And it’s a trade off. Israel gets tech for training the S.E.A.L.S. Oh, and before I forget, you like that cell phone? Or that laptop? It was made possible by Israel.

    • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

      As they have said, it is a great start. It doesn’t end with a fine, but it all starts with legislation that tells the government ‘No!’ in no uncertain terms.

      Remember, the Federal Family does not like being told no.