ban on assault weapons and 10 round clip limit

[OforOppression]

holy SHIT hi aeolwind

thats how you know my threads are the best they bring the best folks

[Swish]

I'd kill for a 10 clip pistol... srsly its shit being here, mandem be comin at pplz with kitchen knives and bats [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They can't override the Supremacy Clause.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

If they try, they'd be attempting to ignore one part of the Constitution to "protect" a perceived right in another.

Morons.

Since this is an attempt to enforce the Constitution, not violate it, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Um yeah. On an off note...that's really a pretty stupid remark. I know you're not stupid...but that statement sure is.

All I did in the post prior to that one was repeat what the authors had already written. There was no guesswork involved.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And that's a pretty intelligent statement, tbh.

Thank you. It's simply the result of being logically consistent. If "arms" means, well, "arms," then it is apparent that this would be the only legal course of action. Anything else is void ab initio.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The Constitution isn't clear and the courts haven't specifically addressed the question yet.

Really? The prefatory clause removes all doubt when it explains the purpose of the operative clause. Anything available to the government (of, by, and for the people) is to be available to the people. Else a free state cannot be secured.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Since this is an attempt to enforce the Constitution, not violate it, how does the Supremacy Clause come into play?

Well...gee, I don't know. You know like maybe...you know when...state law conflicts with federal law?

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well...gee, I don't know. You know like maybe...you know when...state law conflicts with federal law?

A federal Constitutional amendment holds supremacy over a federal bill. Therefore, an act of a state in defiance of a federal bill that violates a federal Constitutional amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A federal Constitutional amendment holds supremacy over a federal bill. Therefore, an act of a state in defiance of a federal bill that violates a federal Constitutional amendment does not violate the Supremacy Clause.

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

there is nothing to interpret

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Really? The prefatory clause removes all doubt when it explains the purpose of the operative clause. Anything available to the government (of, by, and for the people) is to be available to the people. Else a free state cannot be secured.

See..now that's an argument that could fly. The problem is...and think about this one...that argument would do gun owners more harm than it would good.

Would you agree?

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See..now that's an argument that could fly. The problem is...and think about this one...that argument would do gun owners more harm than it would good.

Would you agree?

No. Even if it would, it's still the law. It's our civic duty to uphold the law even when we don't feel it benefits us personally.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

]

It does when the state decides to interpret the Constitution in whatever manner it pleases, and that interpretation in in direct conflict with federal interpretation.

The only legal way to "re-interpret" an amendment is to ratify it. The states and the people have the duty to defy anything short of that.

[Lexical]

Humerox, you have yet to demonstrate a clear understanding of the USA's legal system and its laws. Until you are able, I firmly request for you to stop posting.