I some how missed this law being sign. After finding it on this site and reading what they have to say regarding the tenth Amendment, and how a states action can impact what the feds can do. Well, it just reinforced something I had said in the past about cleaning up your own state houses, if you can, before going at the fed's. This could very well be what the fed is afraid of. Signed by the Governor: Idaho Expands “Constitutional Carry” Law Again | Tenth Amendment Center
Kentucky has really strong gun laws but we are working to reinforce them every time the legislature is in session: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/21RS/hb361/orig_bill.pdf Section 5 is good: https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/21RS/hb538/orig_bill.pdf
Idaho has also filed the Bill to improve the Second Amendment Preservation Act, give it more teeth, make it stronger, call it SAPA 2.0. "The Idaho Second Amendment Alliance’s Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) has been filed in Boise by State Senator Christy Zito. Known as R.S.#28254, our SAPA legislation will shut down Joe Biden’s gun control agenda here in Idaho by expanding our current laws that require Idaho’s peace officers to ONLY enforce Idaho law where firearms, ammunition, and accessories are concerned. So a federal AR-15 ban would fall flat on its face here in Idaho, under current law." Have a look at this website, it's a big deal so try to stay informed. These Bozos haven't even been in office 2 months and they are already trying to wreck the country and the first thing they must do to ensure success is disarm the American citizen. That will not happen here in North Idaho. I know, that's an arrogant statement but I am absolutely positive about it. We have good Sheriffs in Boundary and Kootenai counties and the citizens here will not abide by any unlawful act to disarm them. One last thing, are those 2 divisions still in Washington D.C.? Why? Maybe now we know... Home Page - Idaho Second Amendment Alliance (idahosaa.org)
The Tenth Amendment is an interesting one to use in this situation because the 2nd is also apt. I believe they might be trying to make a statement as to our inherent freedoms as given to us by God vs liberty which can only be given by slave masters. The Amendments to the Constitution are not written as law, they are written as examples of things that free people can do. They are things that are common sense. Laws of society are meant to reflect laws of nature, gravity for example. On earth what goes up must come down. Obviously laws of nature prevail over laws of man. The tenth is a reflection of this as a construction law. By the gov trying to make them laws, as done by amendments after the tenth, they discredit the first 10. If you look at the rest of them you will see they take freedoms away. The first 10 explain rights that God gave us. The others use legal words like person instead of people. There is legal precedent and a legal difference between them. Every legal word has a lawful equivalent. For those of you scratching your heads, legal statute is a rule of a specific society given the force of law by that society. Note that a specific society differs immensely from society at large.
Mankind is endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights. Among those are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I like to explain it to people by having them imagine they are alone on a deserted island. All the wealth of what that natural environment has belongs to them. How they manage it, utilize it and inter act with it is theirs to decide. Their freedom is bound only by the rules they set for themselves. The problem arises when someone else swims ashore and they now have to share said paradise. How do you retain your natural rights and insure the new comer the same protections?
