State, local and jurisdictional-level actions related to gun-control (Post-Newtown)

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

It's better than politicians making unilateral decisions for the people.

Period.

[GratefulCitizen]

Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...Bills/1371.pdf

The various state and county governments are discovering that they are not alone.

At this rate the federal government will have more success if they start shutting down First Amendment rights in preparation.
Something to consider...

[GratefulCitizen]

Arizona
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2291p.pdf

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo

Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (cspoa) has a running list of Sheriffs that have come forward concerning any pending Federal attempt to distort or impinge upon the 2nd Amendment.

Unsurprising that Western States lead the pack...

Currently 90 on the list. If you know any of them or are in their jurisdiction you should give a plug of support.

Here

Here's another list: http://www.examiner.com/article/127-...oor-gun-search

Plus one more here in Arizona:
http://pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments...6b7b4c9&ID=646

[GratefulCitizen]

Utah moving towards Constitutional carry: http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HB0076.pdf

The sheriffs could use some backup from a de facto militia.


Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Wyoming already have Constitutional carry.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

And what could go wrong?

IMO, the commission might have better served the interests of its constituents by stipulating that compliance with new "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," would require a thorough review, study, debate, and additional voting first.

Instead, as the new bill "nullifies" future "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," what happens if a 'grand compromise' is reached in Washington D.C, that works to the benefit of responsible gun owners and also reduces the prospect of violence against children?

Potential examples include:

• Tax deductions for expenses such as gun safety training, gun safes, trigger locks, and liability insurance.
• Incentives (and subsidies) for counties and municipalities to facilitate placing armed security staff on school campuses (provided the staff members follow certain rules and meet standards.
• Tort reform that limits the liability of counties and municipalities in case a member of a school security staff involuntarily wounds or kills innocent civilians while attempting to stop an assailant.
• Amendments to the Affordable Health Care Act for America that specifically shield the privacy of gun owners from their insurers if they seek mental health care.
• Rules for manufacturers that mandate standards for quality control and customer service.

While Franklin County's Board of Commissioners could nullify the nullification, the backtracking would undermine not only the board's credibility but it could also spill over to other groups as well.

MOO, in a policy discussion, especially one of signal importance, you don't say "no" until you know exactly to what you're saying "no."

YMMV.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Hand

Nice. I see discrimination against the children of gun owners in the future. Is that a cause the NAACP will take up?

It unfortunate that certain organizations and individuals are increasingly mentioned only as punch lines to "jokes."

Source is here.

The NAACP's principal objective is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality of minority group citizens of United States and eliminate race prejudice. The NAACP seeks to remove all barriers of racial discrimination through the democratic processes.

At one time, blacks were staunch supporters of the GOP. Now, black Republicans are few and far between. Maybe the way self-described conservatives talk about blacks and issues of concern to African Americans has something to do with it.

But hey, it is all in good fun. Anything for a laugh.

Let's not worry about outreach, diversification, different ideas, and new methods. Let's not consider finding the common areas of concern among blacks, Second Amendment advocates, and LEOs IRT violence against children. After all, the GOP has the current president figured out to a T--that's why the Republican candidates did so brilliantly in the last two presidential elections.

But hey, it is all in good, ironic fun. Anything for a laugh.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

...........At one time, blacks were staunch supporters of the GOP. Now, black Republicans are few and far between. Maybe the way self-described conservatives talk about blacks and issues of concern to African Americans has something to do with it.................

Maybe there would be more black conservatives if the NAA(Liberal)CP and the liberal black community didn't hammer them so hard.

You usually don't lump all people of one group into the same pile.

Is what black Americans want all that much different from other Americans want?

How much of the black middle class is invested in government jobs? I'm talking Post Office, Schools, City, County, State, Federal - et al and everything?

Is their voting D more because the D's promise to keep their jobs safe? Can it be that the blacks getting the EITC and max welfare benefits (as well as a shit pot load of whites) vote D because the D's promise to keep the gravy train rolling?

Years down the road when the train rolls over them they are going to be wondering just who's train it was that hit them - and blame Bush of course.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, the commission might have better served the interests of its constituents by stipulating that compliance with new "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," would require a thorough review, study, debate, and additional voting first.

Instead, as the new bill "nullifies" future "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," what happens if a 'grand compromise' is reached in Washington D.C, that works to the benefit of responsible gun owners and also reduces the prospect of violence against children?

Potential examples include:

• Tax deductions for expenses such as gun safety training, gun safes, trigger locks, and liability insurance.
• Incentives (and subsidies) for counties and municipalities to facilitate placing armed security staff on school campuses (provided the staff members follow certain rules and meet standards.
• Tort reform that limits the liability of counties and municipalities in case a member of a school security staff involuntarily wounds or kills innocent civilians while attempting to stop an assailant.
• Amendments to the Affordable Health Care Act for America that specifically shield the privacy of gun owners from their insurers if they seek mental health care.
• Rules for manufacturers that mandate standards for quality control and customer service.

While Franklin County's Board of Commissioners could nullify the nullification, the backtracking would undermine not only the board's credibility but it could also spill over to other groups as well.

MOO, in a policy discussion, especially one of signal importance, you don't say "no" until you know exactly to what you're saying "no."

YMMV.

There is a not so minor difference between what you posted above and what the specific section of the original post (below for your convenience) states.

"All federal firearms acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations..."

Thus, the notion of not adopting federal firearms legislation should not generally preclude one from availing oneself of federal tax incentives, healthcare, or tort reform, as the case may be. But, as they say, the devil is in the details. The one detail that you omitted in your post could, as well, prove to be significant.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

IMO, the commission might have better served the interests of its constituents by stipulating that compliance with new "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," would require a thorough review, study, debate, and additional voting first.

Instead, as the new bill "nullifies" future "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," what happens if a 'grand compromise' is reached in Washington D.C, that works to the benefit of responsible gun owners and also reduces the prospect of violence against children?

Potential examples include:

• Tax deductions for expenses such as gun safety training, gun safes, trigger locks, and liability insurance.
• Incentives (and subsidies) for counties and municipalities to facilitate placing armed security staff on school campuses (provided the staff members follow certain rules and meet standards.
• Tort reform that limits the liability of counties and municipalities in case a member of a school security staff involuntarily wounds or kills innocent civilians while attempting to stop an assailant.
• Amendments to the Affordable Health Care Act for America that specifically shield the privacy of gun owners from their insurers if they seek mental health care.
• Rules for manufacturers that mandate standards for quality control and customer service.

While Franklin County's Board of Commissioners could nullify the nullification, the backtracking would undermine not only the board's credibility but it could also spill over to other groups as well.

MOO, in a policy discussion, especially one of signal importance, you don't say "no" until you know exactly to what you're saying "no."

YMMV.

Compromise is not in my vocabulary neither is negotiate, not when it concerns my individual rights granted to me by the 2nd Amendment.

Like many others I will draw that line in the sand and tell the politicians:

Molon Labe

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

Compromise is not in my vocabulary neither is negotiate, not when it concerns my individual rights granted to me by the 2nd Amendment.

Like many others I will draw that line in the sand and tell the politicians:

Molon Labe

Respectfully, I must disagree that the 2nd Amendment grants anything.
It guarantees a pre-existent right.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Respectfully, I must disagree that the 2nd Amendment grants anything.
It guarantees a pre-existent right.

Wordsmith......

[tonyz]

While on the topic of natural law and self-defense...not to thread drift but the article at the link below follows up nicely on the immediately prior two posts. Enjoy.

The Natural Right of Self-Defense: Heller’s Lesson for the World

By David B. Kopel

One of the most important elements of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision is the natural law. Analysis of natural law in Heller shows why Justice Stevens‘ dissent is clearly incorrect, and illuminates a crucial weakness in Justice Breyer‘s dissent. The constitutional recognition of the natural law right of self-defense has important implications for American law, and for foreign and international law.

http://www.nationalshootingassociati...lf_Defence.pdf

[Stiletto11]

Definition of Compromise: Bad Guy, "I'm going to shoot you in the head"
Good Guy, " No, please Mister I have a wife and kids."
Bad Guy," OK, I'll shoot you in the chest."

[OldNCranky]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...Bills/1371.pdf

The various state and county governments are discovering that they are not alone.

At this rate the federal government will have more success if they start shutting down First Amendment rights in preparation.
Something to consider...

While we are on Arizona...

I never doubted where he would be on the issue, but Sheriff Joe Arpaio has stepped into the breech so distinctly and to the point as he does...

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sheriff-j...iscating-guns/

“I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States,” Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix, Ariz. “Now if they’re going to tell the sheriff that he’s going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they’re going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law.”

Broomhead pushed the man sometimes called “America’s toughest sheriff” even further, asking Arpaio if the feds passed a law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, would his deputies confiscate such magazines?

“No,” Arpaio said. “My deputies, I said before, I’m going to arm all my deputies – a month ago I said before this – with automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. We’re going to be able to fight back. … I don’t care what they say from Washington.” Sheriff Joe Arpaio

The great thing about Joe is, you know he says what he means and means what he says.
Go Joe!!!!