Standing your ground for your state

Oregon is going to make me a felon this year unless I abandon my natural right to self defense. I've fought as much as I can. I've donated to the groups that fight for my civil rights (not just the 2A), I've written and emailed my representatives, shown up at rallies, and attended meetings. My state is dominated by leftists who have a super majority and a Governor who has a Socialist agenda.

They only give a damn about their Socialist agenda and the rest of us can just piss off. I am resented and not represented. I'm moving some place where the weather is better, the cost of living is 2/3, and I don't need to worry about a swat team breaking down my door because I'm on the list of gun owners they keep in their (Oregon ) unconstitutional firearms registry.

The average family of four in Oregon is on the hook for $500,000 that the State spent in monies they didn't have. They are ramping up social program spending and passing new taxes we have no control over. The best one is a tax on the gross sales of businesses and not the net profits. That was a failed voter bill from the last election and like everything else the state wants and we won't pass they will do it through the legislature. Most businesses have a fairly small margin to begin with and many will be taxed at a rate greater than their profits. They only have two options - move or go out of business. Either way tax revenue will shrink followed by increased taxes on others. I do love this state, but I'm NOT riding it all the way down to Venezuela.

Will I still continue to fight for the rights of Oregonians? Hell, yes, but I will be doing everything I can to prevent the destruction of my civil rights in my new state first. Oregonians won't wake up until they no longer have any recourse and by then it will be too late.

 

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Jan 9, 2017) – A Kentucky bill would take the first step toward prohibiting state cooperation with the enforcement of federal gun control measures, a move that would effectively nullify them in practice in the Bluegrass State.

Rep. Diane St. Onge (R-Lakeside Park), along with 12 cosponsors, introduced House Bill 120 (HB120) on Jan. 3. The legislation would require the Kentucky General Assembly to “adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal act, law, order, rule, or regulation which attempts to commandeer local or state law enforcement officers to enforce federal restrictions on firearms in violation of the Constitution of the United States.”

This bill would only go into effect if the feds try to expressly commandeer state resources. That hasn’t happened …yet. Most state cooperation happens voluntarily. But we shouldn’t be surprised if the feds eventually expressly commandeer state resources – especially if other states refuse to cooperate with enforcement.

Passage of HB120 would also set the stage for future action, such as a blanket ban on state cooperation with enforcement of federal gun control.

EFFECTIVE

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effectively method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from the states.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun laws. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governor’s Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control schemes, the states can effectively bring them down.”

LEGAL BASIS

HB120 rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

WHAT’S NEXT

HB120 had not been assigned to a committee at the time of publication. Once it receives an assignment, it will need to pass with a majority vote before moving to the full House for further consideration.

Kentucky Bill Would Set the Foundation to Nullify Federal Gun Control in Effect | | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

 

Eight states have passed laws voiding federal firearms regulations
By Justine McDaniel, Robby Korth and Jessica Boehm | News21
Aug. 16, 2014

Across the country, a thriving dissatisfaction with the U.S. government is prompting a growing spate of bills in state legislatures aimed at defying federal control over firearms - more than 200 during the last decade, a News21 investigation found.

Particularly in Western and Southern states, where individual liberty intersects with increasing skepticism among gun owners, firearms are a political vehicle in efforts to ensure states’ rights and void U.S. gun laws within their borders. State legislators are attempting to declare that only they have the right to interpret the Second Amendment, a movement that recalls the anti-federal spirit of the Civil War and civil-rights eras.

“I think the president and the majority of Congress, both in the House and Senate, are just completely out of touch with how people feel about Second Amendment rights,” said Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves, who has fought for bills to weaken the federal government’s authority over firearms in his state.

• Over 200 bills to void federal control over guns were proposed in states in the last decade.
• Culture, libertarian politics woven into movement to make federal gun laws unenforceable in states.

In Idaho, the Legislature unanimously passed a law to keep any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. In Kansas, a law passed last year says federal regulation doesn’t apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting “firearms freedom” from the U.S. government since 2010.

A News21 analysis shows 14 such bills were passed by legislators in 11 states, mainly in Western states, along with Kansas, Tennessee and Alaska. Of those, 11 were signed into law, though one was later struck down in court. In Montana, Missouri and Oklahoma, three others were vetoed.

More than three-quarters of U.S. states have proposed nullification laws since 2008. More than half of those bills have come in the last two years after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. All but three have been introduced since President Barack Obama took office.

Underneath the policy jargon lies a culture of firearms woven into the heritage and politics of states whose histories were shaped by guns.

“(The federal government) is diving off into areas unchecked that they’re not supposed to be involved in,” said Montana state Rep. Krayton Kerns, who introduced a bill in 2013 to limit the ability of local police to help enforce federal laws. “Not only is it our right in state legislatures to do this, it’s our obligation to do it. Somebody’s got to put a ‘whoa’ on it.”

Opponents say it’s not federal gun regulation that’s unconstitutional, but laws to nullify it.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit against Kansas on July 9 to stop enforcement of the state’s recently passed Second Amendment Protection Act.

“The law should not be called the Second Amendment Protection Act, it should be called the Gun Violence Preservation Act,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of the center’s Legal Action Project.

Eight states have passed laws voiding federal firearms regulations

 

The alarming thing about blue state population migration to the red states that have lower, or even zero state income taxes, along with a healthy respect for the 2nd Amendment, is that human nature tends to prevail in those situations. Human nature tends toward the lazy, less motivated, more depraved, increased government intervention, the easy "wrong" instead of the difficult "right" when the mixing of two disparate life styles takes place. It's easier to pull a society downward than it is to bootstrap a society upward.

Over time, social order in the red states receiving the blue influx will mostly sink to a lower "common denominator". It won't be immediate, but the components for political change toward the purple, and eventually to blue will be in place. It is rare that a group of lazy blue state-entitled underperformers will improve to the standards of their new red state home. Instead, they will bring those same blue state / big Gov values to their new red state home, and vote accordingly.

The long term prospects of such situations on a national scale are not encouraging. Short of a social renaissance based upon the U.S. Constitution, the blue states losing the people will continue to stay blue, and get worse along the socialist progressive continuum. The red states receiving the infection of the "new blue wave" will experience internal political and social upheaval that they didn't ask for, but are stuck with. If the new blue folks don't see the light and appreciate the red states for what they are, then a slow descent into Venezuelan socialism, or a hot Civil War is what lies ahead for our country.

There is no easy answer. A corrupted education system over recent decades along with falling moral values have set the stage for unpleasant national upheaval, the final outcome of which is difficult to predict. The ignorant young have absorbed an education based on more entitlement, equality of outcomes not opportunity, and less sweat equity----the easy "wrong" and not the "difficult" right. All I can say is May God Save what remains of our Republic, and help us in a Constitutional social renaissance.

 

Don't really think the Feds want to do anything about it. If they did we would not be at this point.

 

That they ran out of pins pins doing Oregon?

 

Utah isn't the only state devoid of pins. Also, FWIW, there are too many pins in a couple other states. I suspect some problems with the accuracy of the data that were used to create the map, but there's merit in the idea.

 

Pins or lack of only mean some body else is in control.

 

I would ask in this case, is your home worth dying for? If it was a forest fire than no but getting run out of the state maybe. Eventually if these people feel no push back there will be no place left. The more posts on this thread, the more I think of locust. Eventually one needs to battle the swarm.
@Tevin was mentioning the people transplanting into Illinois. California, Colorado transplants were mentioned. People are leaving because they have made those places unlivable and they are moving on to other places to ruin. It keeps going. I was quite surprised that @Thunder5Ranch mentioned relocating. That is really sad. TR turned his spread into a livelihood.

 

Not much choice, tax man grins when he says the property taxes will be going up another 300% over the next 5 years. With all the new proposed gun bans and laws odds are half my guns will be illegal. Every time I turn around there is a new fee for doing business or a doubling or tripling of the cost of old fees. The bulk of my decent customer base has already fled IL and what is left is planning on leaving over the next 1-2 years. And just to be blunt I don't want to sell to or do business with the left leaners that are replacing them..........that would be a waste of good food

 

AH, not so fast, both OryGun and Washington have provisios against this, some one got hip to the ideas and FFL's are no longer exempt, being forced to transfer illegal inventory out of state by the date the laws go into effect!
Otherwise, neat-o idea!

 

Same here. If/when the bans hit no choice but to move them out of State. LOL my guns may very well may be moving a year before I can

 

Eventually one needs to battle the swarm.
Ahh yes something that only makes you go hungry or leave their home countries due to Locust.

1. Both sets of forefathers and mothers left their homes, had they not I would be but a wink in the eye of the past.
Dad's side was from Scotland and Ireland, the Scots were doing a genocide exudes as the Brits were killing all they wanted to so as to let the King of England control the Scots so yes I am happy they left, for the High Lands are still puking out the bones of the rebellion.
Mom's side are a combo of the French revolution and the German reformist.
Martyrs of the French Revolution.
Better a living breathing Hobo than a dead martyr.
(The French Revolution began in 1789 as a popular movement to reform the 'absolute' rule of the monarch, Louis XVI. However, by 1793 France was in the grip of the 'Terror')
So yes die on the scaffold, shot by a English Soldier or hit the road to a port that will let you on a ship.

If you want a PM I have the full DNA and Ancestor links.

 

We left California almost seven years ago for Southern Oregon and in this brief time I've seen the beaver state go full on Kalifornia crazy.

I'm currently remodeling my place inside and out and it would be very easy to put it on the market when it's nice & fresh & new and head for greener pastures.

I left the PRK because of its various & sundry communist policies, so now do I leave here as well?
It's a debate I have with myself quite frequently.

I don't think I'm willing to start over somewhere else.

I've fixed up every place we've had and sold them all for a profit, but usually right after they were finally finished. I think this time I want to enjoy the fruits of my labor.

I'm in good company, there are many patriots here in the great State of Jefferson who will stand as well.

So I say *Come and take them.

 

Over all we have it pretty well here in Alabama. God willing and the river don't rise, I'll not be moving. Y'all know that firearms are a big part of my life. I shoot them, repair them and build them from scratch. I will continue to do so regardless of what some shitferbrains politik says I can or can't do. Not keyboard bravado-We've just made up our minds that we won't be told what we can or can't do on our own land.They can live and let live or die from hyper velocity lead poisoning. I no longer care what they choose.