I love living in rural areas, and one of the reasons for that is that less urban areas seem to have more of a fundamental understanding about respect for other people and for freedom. This is likely why states such as Wyoming and Alaska are so much more open to gun ownership.
If a new bill passes, you can put West Virginia towards the top of the list of states which are gun-ownership friendly. Wnd.com gives the details:
A West Virginia lawmaker has introduced a bill to the state House that would outlaw enforcement of current and future gun-control laws that violate the U.S. or state constitutions.
House Bill 2138, introduced by Republican Del. Pat McGeehan, would effectively nullify all federal gun control within the state’s boundaries, according to a report from the Tenth Amendment Center. The bill would make any attempt to enforce such laws a felony.
You have to love that. McGeehan wants to make West Viriginia a state that gun owners can love living in because they’ll be left alone (at least about guns) and allowed to defend themselves.
Of course, this type of thing would drive anti-gunners crazy. I can hear them now crying out about how states have to be subordinate to the Federal government even while these same people are campaigning to withdraw California from the Union because they don’t like Donald Trump as President. This kind of hypocrisy is rampant in anti-gunner political ideology.
You might ask, though, will this bill do the trick if passed? Wnd.com addresses this concern:
While acknowledging the arrest and prosecution of federal agents for acting within the scope of their official duties is a non-starter – in such cases, federal statute automatically transfers such cases to federal court – non-cooperation can be an effective roadblock to federal action, as seen by California and many large Democrat cities declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens.
The simple fact is the federal government depends on local cooperation for most enforcement of its laws. Without support and cooperation from the state, there are not enough federal agents to widely enforce federal law.
In other words, it will be difficult to make Federal laws obeyed if the state doesn’t cooperate. When it comes to respect for the 2nd Amendment, this is a good thing.
works for me
I agree with the idea, but I believe we need to be careful with that. The feds are just likely to use our tax money to hire more agents if they recognize why we are doing it.
I wish it were that easy. First of all, I believe the Feds will eventually win the sanctuary city cases, simply because federal law is on their side. I believe Idaho passed a law allowing firearms manufactured in Idaho and not leaving the state would be exempt from federal law. Didn’t work, as obummers ATF said they would arrest any person in the state in violation of federal law. Right here in Utah, all the County Sheriffs in the state, except SLC wrote obummer a letter saying they would refuse to enforce any new federal firearms laws from the date on the letter. Haven’t heard how that worked out.
People are just gonna have to vote with their feet. When I retired in So Kalifornia, one month later I was a resident of Utah where our gun rights are a given.
The West Virginia legislation has something in it’s favor that sanctuary Cities don’t. Immigration is Constitutionally a federal, not state power and there is no Constitutional law protecting anything the federal government wants to do with it. Not having obeyed immigration law, the foreign nationals here illegally are entirely a federal law enforcement problem and the state cannot be compelled to enforce those laws but they also cannot legally impede enforcement by federal agencies. In the case of firearm law, however, there is a Constitutional foundation favoring the state since the 2nd amendment arguably makes the federal action unconstitutional and, by 14th amendment extension makes state enforcement unconstitutional – the state can therefore validly refuse assistance to an unconstitutional action and go so far as not to permit it by state law. This could have the result that the feds won’t try to enforce any ATF regulation because they won’t want to risk an unfavorable decision in court (“Shall not be infringed” is tough to argue against), a problem that keeps happening to states and cities that try to maintain restrictive gun laws.
if the states do not have to support federals what good is the constitution. anyone knows that the constitution applies to all of the stated, the states ratified the constitution
States should be held accountable for restricting the second amendment, Thank You West Virginia !!!!
Anybody who breakes any law should have the due process system inacted, even these bad laws by bad polititions should be processed🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
I am Carrie Liddell. I stand FOR the rights of all guns in our Country. I recognize that CRIMINALS will MISUSE the Laws of America- but ALL AMERICA SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUY GUNS if they wish to use it!
The 2d Amendment is our God given and Constitutional right. Keep the Feds, especially the ATF, out of our lives.
In short, the gubbermint (federal, state, local) has NO authority to negate/nullify the 2nd Amendment, without FOLLOWING the PROPER PROCEDURE outlined IN the Constitution itself!!
Text of the 2nd Amendment:
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.
And you gun grabbers conveniently disregard what the 2nd Amendment ACTUALLY MEANS!!!!
What part of “…[t]he right of THE PEOPLE to keep (have/possess) and bear (CARRY) Arms, shall not be infringed.” do YOU NOT understand? The right of the people means, THE INDIVIDUAL has the right, NOT referring to an army (collective right).
Research what was meant by the founding fathers when they referred to “A well regulated Militia”. Back then, they meant EVERY able-bodied man who knew how to handle a gun (meaning well trained) WAS the Militia!
You must remember that the founding fathers used the meanings of the words when they wrote them, NOT THE MEANINGS USED TODAY!
Considering the fact that if a man wanted his family to have MEAT, he had to go HUNTING to KILL an animal, USUALLY WITH A GUN/RIFLE! (You DO realize that back in the 1700’s, there were NO grocery stores with REFRIGERATED meat displays, where the woman of the house could go to buy a steak or roast to fix for dinner that night!?!?) SO MOST men WERE well trained, therefore WERE “well regulated” the Militia!
“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Great explanation of the 2nd Amendment begins at approximately the 25-minute mark.
Im telling you the constatushion is the sapream law hear and their for takes Presidents over all other laws both State and federal. Yes I sead peared.So with that theirs nothing to descas hear One moor time .
The US Supreme Court would probably find this statute unconstitutional if it ever comes before them. As a practical matter however the Feds depend a lot upon cooperation from local law enforcement. If that is not forthcoming it would be tough to enforce Federal gun control laws. During Prohibition many local law enforcement agencies refused to cooperate with the Feds, which was one of the reasons Prohibition ultimately failed.
Comments are closed.