2A Notice

Help Support Homesteading Forum:

mulescj8

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
477
E2447B0F-924D-405F-90ED-06CB067123FA.jpeg
Attention Florida & Georgia

Okay guys I wasn’t sure where to post this and it breaks my heart to have to share this, on top of the battlefield in Virginia going on I’m guessing the snake Michael Bloomberg is trying to push his gun control agenda into Florida and I was told by someone in Georgia that this bill was also introduced in to Georgia this week also.

People start hammering your local and state reps to oppose these bills, they will try to get this passed one state at a time until the majority rules. The battle is now and it’s in our own front yards.
 

Curmudgeon

Malinois' are awesome.
Neighbor
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,233
Location
The Wolverine

Sentry18

Thrivalist
Staff member
Moderator
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
19,101
Location
US of A
Come on SCOTUS! We need a clear ruling that the 2A is absolute and these infringement laws are all null & void. I am still hopeful that the NY Rifle & Pistol Club vs New York case is going to be a punch in the anti-gunners face.
 

phideaux

Spectator of Life
Staff member
Moderator
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
12,512
Location
West Ky
I contacted my reps.

I worry about KY, now that stupid people elected a dumorat for Gov.
He already is welcoming more refugees??? To KY.

America haters at work everywhere.

Jim
 

Curmudgeon

Malinois' are awesome.
Neighbor
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,233
Location
The Wolverine
Well, I've always been a fan of the Beatles, and I do love this:

Revolution
The Beatles


You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's going to be alright
Alright, alright

You say you want a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's going to be alright
Alright, alright

You say you'll change the Constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with me anyhow
Don't you know it's going to be alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright...
 

bkt

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
616
Who'd have thought New York State would have more relaxed gun laws than Virginia, Georgia or Florida?! New Yorkers overwhelmingly rejected the SAFE Act and New York Sheriffs have publicly stated they won't enforce the Act. Maybe you guys south of me need to be just as non-compliant as we were/are.
 

mulescj8

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
Joined
Dec 2, 2017
Messages
477
Who'd have thought New York State would have more relaxed gun laws than Virginia, Georgia or Florida?! New Yorkers overwhelmingly rejected the SAFE Act and New York Sheriffs have publicly stated they won't enforce the Act. Maybe you guys south of me need to be just as non-compliant as we were/are.
I can promise if they pass any of that crap here we will be almost 100% non-compliant
 

CrackbottomLouis

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,355
Location
GA
They are putting forth the same bill in GA. Dead on arrival but they are trying nonetheless. Sentry is right. We desperately need SCOTUS to step up to the plate and put this to bed.
 

bkt

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2017
Messages
616
They are putting forth the same bill in GA. Dead on arrival but they are trying nonetheless. Sentry is right. We desperately need SCOTUS to step up to the plate and put this to bed.
The SCOTUS can't do anything until someone challenges the law and appeals work their way to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is notoriously non-committal on 2A. Some argue the Heller case incorporated 2A against the states, but that isn't how things are playing out; we still have draconian gun control laws everywhere and more on the way, it would seem.
 

VThillman

Geezer
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
2,555
Location
Southeastern Vermont
First, SCOTUS needs to reread the Constitution, and also examine that unholy body of Precedence with jaundiced eyes, Then - if the Justices honor their oaths - they will strike down this BS. And then will come order or chaos.

I really don't know if SCOTUS has the necessary . . . intestinal fortitude.

SCOTUS doesn't really have to wait.
 

SheepDog

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
4,862
Location
SE Washington State
All we need to do is stay firm in our noncompliance and fight where it will do the most good.
I'll see you all on the town green when they come for our guns. I'll be up in the tree on the far right with a rifle to take out the leaders. ;)
 

SheepDog

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
4,862
Location
SE Washington State
They do realize that they are WAY outnumbered, right? In a war of attrition they will lose fast!
 

CrackbottomLouis

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,355
Location
GA
The SCOTUS can't do anything until someone challenges the law and appeals work their way to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is notoriously non-committal on 2A. Some argue the Heller case incorporated 2A against the states, but that isn't how things are playing out; we still have draconian gun control laws everywhere and more on the way, it would seem.
The New York case does have potential.
 

Haertig

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,209
Location
Colorado
This will never be won in the courts. A bad government entity makes an unconstitutional law. On purpose. It usually takes years before a challenge works it's way through the courts. If the law is declared unconstitutional, the government entity says "Oopsie, my bad." Then they make another unconstitutional law, on purpose, and wait the several years that new law takes to wind through the courts. Then they keep repeating this. They don't care if their old law gets invalidated, they just write a new one that is slightly different and pretend not to know any better. There is no penalty to them for intentionally writing an unconstitutional law.

In the New York case that is going to SCOTUS, the government must be worried about something new, because they tried to change the law and have the challenge negated because it would no longer be relevant. I'm not sure what they could be worried about, because they never get penalized, the law just gets struck down ... to be quickly replaced by another.
 

Sentry18

Thrivalist
Staff member
Moderator
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
19,101
Location
US of A
In the New York case that is going to SCOTUS, the government must be worried about something new, because they tried to change the law and have the challenge negated because it would no longer be relevant. I'm not sure what they could be worried about, because they never get penalized, the law just gets struck down ... to be quickly replaced by another.
SCOTUS has already heard the case, we are just waiting on their ruling. However these supreme court cases cost those liberal states a LOT of $$$ to defend. And I mean a lot of $$$. Which is why New York dropped the law as fast as they could in a desperate attempt to avoid the court case. So there is some penalty, just not as much as their should be.
 

Curmudgeon

Malinois' are awesome.
Neighbor
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,233
Location
The Wolverine
This will never be won in the courts. A bad government entity makes an unconstitutional law. On purpose. It usually takes years before a challenge works it's way through the courts. If the law is declared unconstitutional, the government entity says "Oopsie, my bad." Then they make another unconstitutional law, on purpose, and wait the several years that new law takes to wind through the courts. Then they keep repeating this. They don't care if their old law gets invalidated, they just write a new one that is slightly different and pretend not to know any better. There is no penalty to them for intentionally writing an unconstitutional law.

In the New York case that is going to SCOTUS, the government must be worried about something new, because they tried to change the law and have the challenge negated because it would no longer be relevant. I'm not sure what they could be worried about, because they never get penalized, the law just gets struck down ... to be quickly replaced by another.

Great point. Perhaps things need to be changed on how laws are written. Legislators and their lawyers write the proposed law, then it should be required review by a panel of judges BEFORE being introduced and voted on, then and only then does it go to the floor for a vote if it passes the constitutionality sniff test.
 

VThillman

Geezer
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
2,555
Location
Southeastern Vermont
Great point. Perhaps things need to be changed on how laws are written. Legislators and their lawyers write the proposed law, then it should be required review by a panel of judges BEFORE being introduced and voted on, then and only then does it go to the floor for a vote if it passes the constitutionality sniff test.
I suspect that what you propose would be construed as breaking the rules for Separation of Powers. The act would need to pass a vote, then be reviewed for Constitutionality before becoming a 'law of the land'.
 

Meerkat

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
19,206
First, SCOTUS needs to reread the Constitution, and also examine that unholy body of Precedence with jaundiced eyes, Then - if the Justices honor their oaths - they will strike down this BS. And then will come order or chaos.

I really don't know if SCOTUS has the necessary . . . intestinal fortitude.

SCOTUS doesn't really have to wait.
Correct!
 

Meerkat

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
19,206
This will never be won in the courts. A bad government entity makes an unconstitutional law. On purpose. It usually takes years before a challenge works it's way through the courts. If the law is declared unconstitutional, the government entity says "Oopsie, my bad." Then they make another unconstitutional law, on purpose, and wait the several years that new law takes to wind through the courts. Then they keep repeating this. They don't care if their old law gets invalidated, they just write a new one that is slightly different and pretend not to know any better. There is no penalty to them for intentionally writing an unconstitutional law.

In the New York case that is going to SCOTUS, the government must be worried about something new, because they tried to change the law and have the challenge negated because it would no longer be relevant. I'm not sure what they could be worried about, because they never get penalized, the law just gets struck down ... to be quickly replaced by another.
EXACTLY!
 

Meerkat

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
19,206
SCOTUS has already heard the case, we are just waiting on their ruling. However these supreme court cases cost those liberal states a LOT of $$$ to defend. And I mean a lot of $$$. Which is why New York dropped the law as fast as they could in a desperate attempt to avoid the court case. So there is some penalty, just not as much as their should be.

Sentry it cost them nothing since their money grows on trees they keep making more and that is why we are in so much debt.
These liberal judges rule from the nench and could care less about any laws.
 

SheepDog

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
4,862
Location
SE Washington State
I suspect that what you propose would be construed as breaking the rules for Separation of Powers. The act would need to pass a vote, then be reviewed for Constitutionality before becoming a 'law of the land'.
VT,
Ruled on by a panel of 13 citizens with a copy of the constitution as their aid. It would take all thirteen to OK it but one to keep it from becoming a law.
 

CrackbottomLouis

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,355
Location
GA
How long would it take for them to "stack" the review board or the court created to review? I agree in principle. Maye we should have the opportunity to make a constitutionally based grievance to the general courts or SCOTUS before a law goes into effect that would delay implementation of said law? I can see how that would be hijacked too but not sure there is a perfect answer. I can see a law reveiw court department kind of thing but none of this lifetime appt stuff. I can see it getting hijacked with a quickness though so not sure. Would have to have checks and balance. Like the ability to appeal to different court. Review board state appeal board federal? Not sure how I would want that set up.
 

CrackbottomLouis

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,355
Location
GA
Great point. Perhaps things need to be changed on how laws are written. Legislators and their lawyers write the proposed law, then it should be required review by a panel of judges BEFORE being introduced and voted on, then and only then does it go to the floor for a vote if it passes the constitutionality sniff test.
VT,
Ruled on by a panel of 13 citizens with a copy of the constitution as their aid. It would take all thirteen to OK it but one to keep it from becoming a law.
This is good. A review panel of a citizen jury. Would still need check and balance though.
 

CrackbottomLouis

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Dec 4, 2017
Messages
1,355
Location
GA
How about if we charge politicians that vote for an unconstitutional law that is found to be unconstitutional by the courts with something like 3rd degree treason carrying a penalty be disqualification from public service for life? That would make politicians darn careful methinks.
 

VThillman

Geezer
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
2,555
Location
Southeastern Vermont
How about if we charge politicians that vote for an unconstitutional law that is found to be unconstitutional by the courts with something like 3rd degree treason carrying a penalty be disqualification from public service for life? That would make politicians darn careful methinks.
Hah. Sounds good to me.
 
Top