So basically President Obama can decide what federal laws he wants to enforce, and which ones he wants to blatantly ignore? That doesn't sound like Democracy to me. :idunno:

 

Not exactly, but every president gets to "prioritize" how executive office resources are used and they can put things on the bottom of the list.

So basically President Obama can decide what federal laws he wants to enforce, and which ones he wants to blatantly ignore? That doesn't sound like Democracy to me. :idunno:

 

Not that simple. I think it comes down to prioritization of Federal resources. Are we going to send Feds into a house to see if a guy is using weed? Probably not the best use of resources.

 

The real debate will come up in regards to selling it.

Not that simple. I think it comes down to prioritization of Federal resources. Are we going to send Feds into a house to see if a guy is using weed? Probably not the best use of resources.

 

The real debate will come up in regards to selling it.

 

You know what else is not a good use of resources? Sending them into the law-abiding citizen's house who's owned an AR for years without any shred of evidence he's any kind of threat.

You know what else is not a good use of resources? Sending them into the law-abiding citizen's house who's owned an AR for years without any shred of evidence he's any kind of threat.

 

100% agreement. Not just on this issue but on ANY issue.

If all this comes to pass and they decide to enforce it, the size of our federal government is going to explode; between this and the IRS dealing with healthcare.

Kentucky version...

 

Proposal to ignore any new federal gun laws clears Kentucky Senate panel | Politics and Government | Kentucky.com

 

FRANKFORT — Kentucky would not enforce any federal law or regulation made after Jan. 1, 2013, if it bans or restricts ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or requires gun registration under a bill a state Senate committee approved Thursday.

Read more here: Proposal to ignore any new federal gun laws clears Kentucky Senate panel | Politics and Government | Kentucky.com

I wish I had a good answer here.

 

A state declaring that it will willfully defy federal law is a problem. Congressional overreach on a scale this large is a problem as well.

 

Confiscation, magazine clips, some of the other things I've been hearing... I'm not wild about them and I don't think they do much to stop the problems we're actually facing.

 

But I do think something has to be done and the rhetoric of "no controls" vs. "absolute control" lacks the nuance and careful planning that actual policy solutions ought to have.

Federal appeals court rejects Illinois rejection of order to create CCDW law.

 

Concealed carry Illinois - chicagotribune.com

 

SPRINGFIELD — A divided federal appeals court today rejected Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s request for a rehearing on the case where the state has been ordered to allow citizens to carry guns in public.

Ah, I see your logic. Sure go ahead, Feds, and enforce it if you wish. We're not.

 

Exactly. Whether I agree with current supreme court precedence is irrelevant until something changes all federal laws supercede state law. But there is nothing that says states must enforce federal laws. States can prioritize enforcement like the president.

Why do states have to follow an unjust rule or law. A person in the military doesnt have to follow an unreasonable request or order. So why should the states. Everyone knows the crazy leader we have now is bent of taking our guns and creating a socialist state. I am just shocked more military leaders havent spoken out against him, let alone democrats who know Obama is leading us down a dark path. Are all democrats for the destruciton of America.

I wish I had a good answer here.

 

A state declaring that it will willfully defy federal law is a problem. Congressional overreach on a scale this large is a problem as well.

 

Confiscation, magazine clips, some of the other things I've been hearing... I'm not wild about them and I don't think they do much to stop the problems we're actually facing.

 

But I do think something has to be done and the rhetoric of "no controls" vs. "absolute control" lacks the nuance and careful planning that actual policy solutions ought to have.

Enforce the laws already in place, start looking for solutions with the mental health issues. That's what needs focus.