[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: There’s Something Fishy about 1 State’s Vote to Nullify Federal Gun Laws There’s Something Fishy about 1 State’s Vote to Nullify Federal Gun Laws The state of South Carolina made a startling decision quite recently. On the eve of CPAC, the South Carolina legislature voted they would vote to nullify any future federal regulations on the state’s gun rights. On the surface this might seem like a positive move forward for gun rights. Truth is the prospect of the state of South Carolina resisting the federal government on gun regulations is something the federal government isn’t used to seeing. And it could change everything. The Post and Courier wrote: The Second Amendment Preservation Act directs state officials to not enforce any federal law, rule or regulation that took effect after Jan. 1 that limits access to firearms and ammunition. […] The bill’s author, Laurens Republican Rep. Mike Pitts, rebuffed that argument. He said the measure aims to protect from new laws enacted after Jan. 1. It would not apply if Congress extends the gun-buying waiting period from 72 hours to 10 days or more because they would be amending existing law, he said. “The ‘Charleston loophole’ was a sidetrack to use a motion to fight this particular bill,” Pitts said. “I don’t think (the bill) would’ve drawn any debate if it weren’t an election year.” Charleston Democrat Leon Stavrinakis was among those who argued against the bill on the floor by stressing the need to protect the country from domestic terrorism. Now its opponents have to count on the bill gaining no traction in the Senate, which has been stuck in filibuster limbo since the start of the session, or for it to return with a more narrow scope. So what’s the fishy part of what would seem like a very pro-gun move? Some claim this vote is doing nothing more than paying lip service to protecting gun rights as it does nothing to nullify regulations on regulations that have already been passed. Some claim that if the lawmakers were really serious about protecting the second amendment they would have voted to repeal all infringements. According to them this vote just makes it look like they are defending the second amendment. What’s your opinion, is it better to have this vote on record? Or, did the lawmakers not do enough to protect the second amendment? Poster Comment: Nullification seems to be a southern thing. South Carolina was the start of the War Between the States at Fort Sumter. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||