Bio not provided
Looks like Missouri just decided that the ATF no longer says what goes in their state. It will be very interesting to watch things develop. Some people here don't seem to understand that the US constitution never gave the federal supreme court the power to be the final decider of constitutionality, and that means that the 10th amendment applies in this situation. Which means that the states decide what's constitutional. Also, the supremacy clause of the US constitution only applies to _constitutional_ laws. If the states decide the laws aren't constitutional, they're not supreme. In other words, if the federal government twists the meaning of the constitution, the states have the right and the duty to call them on it.
The other states need to support Missouri and Kansas. They're reading the US constitution correctly.
7 months ago on Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control Measures by a Veto-Proof Majority
I sure am glad sheriffs are standing up to the nuts in DC, and I'm glad states are starting to stand up to DC as well.
Here's a disturbing subject that is _bound_ to come up during all the various nullification efforts. I know it will, because the federal government has used it as a way of manipulating states for many decades now, and if we don't find a way to effectively deal with it, all this will be for nothing. The subject I'm talking about is one many of you are already aware of : The federal government uses the income tax money from the people of the various states as a way of _controlling_ the states. Specifically, the federal government uses our own tax money against us by refusing to allot "federal funds" (which are composed of our tax money) to states when those states refuse to dance to the tune of the federal government.
Here's an idea on how the problem might be dealt with. The idea isn't mine. I'm just passing it along. A few years back, I read somewhere that someone in, I _think_ it might have been Colorado, tried to pass a bill (state level) that would have changed the way income taxes are paid to the IRS in that state. The gist of it was that if passed, the bill would have required all citizens of that state, instead of paying their income tax straight to the IRS, to make the state a sort of "middle man", meaning the people would give the tax money to the state, then the state would give the money to the IRS. The point of this being that the next time the federal government refuses to give federal funds to the state based on the states refusal to do things the federal government would like for them to do, but which the state is not constitutionally required to do, the state can then simply withhold that amount of money from the next years IRS payment. :-) Sounds like an interesting idea to me, as it would largely neuter the ability of the nuts in DC to use bribery to manipulate the states actions the way they've been doing for decades now. Of course there would be a huge outcry from the left, but who cares? They're the enemy in the first place. This country is out of money and the pied piper is leading the liberal fools of this nation straight to their own doom. Time to stop playing Mr nice guy, and start hitting them where it counts. _Money_. Once that's dealt with, telling them to get screwed on other subjects will be a simple matter. Does anyone here remember hearing of the bill I'm talking about? Obviously, it went nowhere at the time it was originally introduced, but given the terrible state of the economy now, I think that bill's time may have come.
If that bill wouldn't be workable, I guess the only fix would be to repeal the 16th amendment.
Until one thing or the other is done, the states are gonna have a hard time fighting, cause money talks.
10 months, 1 week ago on Sheriffs, States and the Supreme Court
@RedTulie The part I like about it is that it would keep the states from having to dance to the tune of the federal government in order to get income tax money back that rightfully belongs to them. Currently, people's income tax money goes straight to the IRS, then the federal government makes the states do things they don't want to do in order for the feds to allow them to have that same money for the use of the state. If the state gets that money from their citizens at tax time instead of the IRS getting it, then the federal government can't use it as a tool to manipulate the states.
11 months ago on Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@Patrick Henry @dmellon With that thought in mind, I remember reading a few years ago about a state (maybe Colorado?) where someone tried to pass a bill that would effectively deal with cutting out the ability of the feds to hold money over the states heads the way they've been doing. The idea was this: The state passes a law saying that any/all tax money coming from citizens of that state must go directly to that state. Then the _state_ sends it to the feds, only if and when they choose to. That way anytime the feds are doing something unconstitutional, the state just says NO, and that's that. The feds can't withhold what they never receive in the first place.
Sure, that would cause an uproar, but hey... something like that is eventually gonna have to be done, if the federal government is ever gonna be put back in it's proper constitutional place.
@InalienableWrights I initially had the same thought, but upon further thought, it may be that they figure "it's a start" and the rest can be done at a later time. Gotta hope that's what they're thinking, anyway.
@OdellHarwell Okay, I see what you're saying about the "owned" part. I'm sure the feds will attack that part immediately, on anything people own that wasn't manufactured in wyoming. Even if it doesn't go back out of the state at any time. - Good for Wyoming though, regardless. It's about time the states started standing up for the constitution.
Is the author of this article certain about the wording of part of this bill? The part quoted below looks like nothing more than the law WY passed last year making weapons made _in_Wyoming_, which stay in Wyoming off limits to federal laws, because of the fact that they don't involve interstate trade. That law, too, had a provision for the imprisonment of anyone attempting to enforce federal laws that conflict with the WY law. If that's all this is, then they're not doing anything but passing the same law they already passed last year. Surely that's not the case. Here's the quote from the above article:
“Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”