5
   

New Hampshire threatens Fed agents with felony arrests

 
 
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 09:43 am
And I say GOOD FOR THEM!!

Its about time that the feds learn that the 10th amendment still applies today

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d1-New-Hampshire-proposes-state-soverignty-lawwith-a-twist

Quote:
That is not stopping more states from hopping on the state sovereignty bandwagon, with the lastest to do so being New Hampshire.

Pre-filed for the 2010 legislative session in New Hampshire, House Bill 1285 (HB1285) seeks to “exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation.”

Don't call the Live Free or Die state a copycat, though--the New Hampshire bill contains a very interesting provision not (to my knowledge) seen in any of the other states' legislation.

Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony. (emphasis added)


Tthis is going to be interesting to watch, and to see how the feds respond if this bill passes.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 2,950 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 09:44 am
I asbsolutely love this.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 11:10 am
@mysteryman,
As a former New Hampshire man I salute my former fellow citizens for their courage and initiative. Then I break out in uncontrollable laughter. And then I remember that the New England states were the first to threaten cesession, long before the South throught of it as a strategy.

As the Japanese told Sen. Ted Kennedy: "Rots'a ruck on your erection, Senator."
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 12:41 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew you are correct as not since New Hampshire took the lead in threatening to leave the union in 1812 and it leadership had secret talks with British agents do you have as must reasons to be proud of your former state.

Perhaps we will get lucky and this kind of behavior will help kill the Republican Party as it did kill the Federal Party so long ago.

mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 03:27 pm
@BillRM,
How is New Hampshire enforcing the 10th amendment going to kill the repub party?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 03:47 pm
@mysteryman,
It call being a traitor to the US government as this issue of state rights and powers verse Federal rights and powers had been decided many times in the courts and once on the battlefield.

As President Jackson once told his friends in South Caroline if they do not stop such talks I will personally lead troops to that state and hang my good friends from the trees of North Caroline.

mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 03:48 pm
@BillRM,
Wait a minute.
Are you actually saying that abiding by the Constitution is an act of treason now?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 04:04 pm
@mysteryman,
Deciding your opinion of the meaning of the constitution clause or amendment take procedure over the Federal courts and using a state power to interfere with Federal government agents is indeed treason and can not be consider anything but treason.

This matter had been settle with the lost of 800,000 lives once with the same arguments by state right supporters.

See any history book concerning the states claims of being able to nullify Federal laws they do not care for from the founding of the country.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 04:36 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Deciding your opinion of the meaning of the constitution clause or amendment take procedure over the Federal courts and using a state power to interfere with Federal government agents is indeed treason and can not be consider anything but treason.


I think you need to learn what treason is.
It is the ONLY crime defined in the Constitution, and has a very specific definition.
From Article 3, section 3 of the US Constitution...



Quote:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted


So, abiding by the Constitution is in no way treason.

Quote:
See any history book concerning the states claims of being able to nullify Federal laws they do not care for from the founding of the country


As I understand it, the states want the ability to handle tthemselves anything that happens solely in the state, and that does not cost the govt or other states any money.
Since when did the US Govt have the right to violate the 10th amendment.

And if you are talking about the civil war, that was about secession from the union, nothing more.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 04:51 pm
@mysteryman,
Silly man if a state would used it police powers to arrest federal agents then the Federal courts would order them released and declare the law enabling the arrests as unconstitution.

If the state officers did not obey that order then Federal force of whatever degree would be apply and in order to keep those agents in prison you would need to take up arms against the the Federal government and that is an act of treason without any question.

It is the Federal court system that decide issues concerning the Constitution not state governments.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jan, 2010 05:00 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
anything that happens solely in the state, and that does not cost the govt or other states any money.


The Southern states would had agree with you one hundred percent during the civil right movement of the late 50s to 60s.

However Federal troops with bayonet’s on rifles starting with President Eishower was used as a show of force to disagree with your position and the southern states position.

I remember as a child watching airborne troops enforcing Federal laws and Federal courts orders over state laws.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 03:22 pm
MM - can you clear up some of the word soup here for me? I'm confused.

Thanks
K
O
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 05:21 pm
@Diest TKO,
Basically, the state of New Hampshire is saying that the feds do not have the authority to regulate any guns or ammunition made and used solely in state.

The feds say the interstate commerce clause gives them the authority, and NH says that if the weapons are made and used solely in NH the interstate commerce clause does not apply.

They are threatening, if this bill passes, to arrest and charge with a felony any federal agent that tries to enforce federal rules on what is solely a state matter.

I hope the bill passes.

NH says that the 10th amendment gives them the authority, and that the feds have no authority in the matter.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 05:22 pm
@mysteryman,
I hope all their highway projects are finished up...
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 05:40 pm
@mysteryman,
Several months ago, the NRA announced it would not participate in the defense of anyone relying on that theory. That was in regard to Montana, and I believe Tennessee as well.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 06:49 pm
@mysteryman,
I guess I understand better, but I'm still confused about one thing.

How can NH assure that it's weapon's and ammunition are used solely inside the state?

I mean, how far can they take this? Is the metal the gun and it's bullets going to be mined, refined, processed, and manufactured inside the state? Is the gunpowder going to be made in the state too? Is the boxes that hold the ammunition going to be made in the state? what about the cardboard in the boxes? From trees in NH?

What happens when 20 rounds of a box of 50 bullets get fired out of state? Can the state regulate the other 30 bullets?

I guess I don't object to the spirit of the law, but frankly, I think it's impossible.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 07:56 pm
@mysteryman,
It in fact just grand standing as if such a law was passed the Federal courts would block it.

You can not do an end run around the Federal court system over a matter of Constitution law.

That had been without question for the last 150 years or so.

If New Hampshire had a problem with Congress and the how the ATF is enforcing congress laws the only recourse is the Federal court system short of another civil war.

A note to Mysteryman we are not under the Article of Confederation and we are one nation and the Federal Government is supreme.

Any limit to the power of the Federal government under the Constitution is decided by the judicial branch of the Federal government and no where else.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 08:05 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Any limit to the power of the Federal government under the Constitution is decided by the judicial branch of the Federal government and no where else.


I don't know enough about the law to argue against this point with any case law or legislation reference; but just reading this scares the **** out of me if it is true.

Is it? Because I have a hard time believing it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 09:47 pm
@maporsche,
Why on earth would settling matters about the constitution in the courts scare the **** out of you?

The Constitution itself states that is where questions are to be decided.
You can't support the constitution and then decide you don't want the courts to decide matters of law as the constitution says.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2010 09:52 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
I don't know enough about the law to argue against this point with any case law or legislation reference; but just reading this scares the **** out of me if it is true.


If that was not the case we would not be one nation but a group of fifty nations with every state with complete sovereignty within it borders able to disobey any national laws that it care to. We would be back to the days of the Article of Confederation.

This is the claim of states rights to nullify any Federal law within it borders and as I already stated it was decided a 150 years ago that no such right exist.

Now my question is why is the old **** being scare out of you because we are one nation not fifty nations?

Would you had prefer the Southern States being able in the 1960’s to block Federal civil rights laws and voting rights laws for example?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » New Hampshire threatens Fed agents with felony arrests
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/26/2021 at 10:13:32