arma virumque cano (et alia)
These types of laws seem to be really taking off. Probably because it worked so well for the sanctuary cities.
What I'd like to see next is states not only asserting the power to arrest agents of the federal government trying to enforce federal gun laws within the state, but for the states to bill the feds for any ammunition used in stopping said federal hired muscle. Ammo is expensive, you know.
What gun law are the feds violating? Just secede, if you want the feds out of your State.The next time a killer from that State crosses State lines, the feds should just refuse to cooperate in apprehending that criminal. Leave it to State police and see how far they get, trying to operate in another State.
Good for these states. When federal law violates our rights, the states shouldn't give aid and comfort to the Feds. That's true whether we're talking about marijuana, guns, enforcing DOMA, or whatnot. Fortunately, DOMA was seriously weakened, and the Department of Justice is backing off pot. That tells me that the strategy works.
Your right to buy and own a gun is not being violated. Since you say it so often, yet, with no proof that the right to buy and own a gun is being violated, you must be lying to make a false point.
You being too stupid to realize that gun rights encompass more than just owning "a gun."
No, ME, is stating a fact. Gun accessories are not a right under the 2nd amendment.
The typical gun loon character "stupid" like Elizebeth's "asshole" just a bunch of foul mouthed loons. This is how it all started months ago. I wasn't foul mouthed until you were, then threatening to sue me over statements you made, that proved you are a criminal liar. Keep it up gun loon and prove to everyone I am correct about the criminal thinking you.
And just how do you draw that conclusion?
The good news is that most states and Congress disagree with you.
Yet the Supreme Court has agreed with me. We are talking about a federal right.
Actually, the Supreme Court so far agrees with my side, as well.
Gee, I didn't know the Supreme Court made gun accessories a right.Because they have not.
Gun accessories are property, which you have a right to own thru commerce. Heck even the gun itself is owned the same way. Anyone has the right to own property acquired legally. So the Supreme Court did not have to address this issue of property. They only affirmed the right to use said property according to the civil rights enumerated.
Sorry, the Supreme Court has limitations on property.No surprise you don't know that; as a criminal you reject and don't understand how the law works, and have proven that over and over and over again. You think it's fine to beat people up.You think revenge is justice.You are nothing but a criminal.
And you are breaking the law by committing libel.
Anon, can you cite where the Supreme Court has set limitations on personally held private property? A state can, a county, a city. But federally? You better go look again.
It's not libel if it's your own words.Has the government the right to take your property to say, expand a roadway?
You repeatedly call me a criminal, but since you have no evidence to support your lies, you are committing libel. Retract those, or we have nothing to discuss.