Friday, March 1, 2013

Idaho federal gun enforcement protection bill goes to committee today.

“This legislation is to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal orders, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after January 1, 2013, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens' rights under the Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 11,” the bill’s Statement of Purpose explains. “This Constitutional provision disallows confiscation of firearms except those actually used in commission of a felony, and disallows other restrictions on a lawful citizen's right to own firearms and ammunition.
My comment? While admirable as a token of state resistance to Federal tyranny, NO law will protect anybody from the lawless. Only the muzzles of an undetermined number of rifles can do that, wielded by good folks who know how -- and have the will -- to use them.

2 comments:

Semper Fi, 0321 said...

Yeah, it's only a piece of paper that gives you false hope. In the end you have to defend it with steel and copper anyway.
Wyoming's governor caved in on all 3 gun bills, another Republican follower of Lord Obama. The new guy everybody said was on our side. Ha!

Drew Rinella said...

I'm trying to understand the supremacy clause vs states rights in better detail. Can anyone describe this to me? Maybe could you write an article on the topic?

I understand the supremacy clause makes federal laws preempt state laws, but it would seem to me that a law which exceeds the authority of the federal government would then be void as it is an unconstitutional law. I also understand that case law puts pretty much everything under the federal government's authority due to the interstate commerce clause, as the courts have deemed that this clause applies to anything that could potentially cross state lines, and not things that have actually crossed state lines.

This is all very confusing and irritating. I can't imagine that this is what the framers had in mind.