johnwilliamson062
Moderator
It means civil disobedience.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ATF says NO to state sovereignty
- Thread starter NavyLT
- Start date
From what I keep reading from a lot of you folks is that if Congress passes a law, the president agrees, and the courts say it is ok, then therefore it is ok regardless of the law.
Does that still stand if it forces you to pay for someone else's abortion under this new healthcare plan?
Does it still stand if you must give up 50% or more of your income in direct taxes, plus whatever amount you pay for every single product or service which pays for taxes for the folks who made those products or services happen?
Does it still stand if you are forced to pay taxes to have propaganda taught to your children in schools rather than an actual education?
Does it still stand if your 'religion' or lack of puts your on a terrorist watch list?
Does it still stand when people are murdered by the ATF or FBI over a supposed $200 tax issue in Idaho?
There was a man who went to visit a friend, whom was a preacher, in another place. When he got there, he found men had tied his friend up and beaten him almost to death because he did not have a 'license' or 'permit' from the government to be a minister. His friend died shortly after. He stood before Congress not long after this, and the speech he made was ended as written below.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry
We all have a choice in our lives of how to live it, and I certainly do not want to see a violent revolution in this country, which is why these tea parties are becoming so popular. It is a non-violent way to say "excuse me but we want answers" and ask that our cries be heard.
It isn't just about us, but about what world we leave our children. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Does that still stand if it forces you to pay for someone else's abortion under this new healthcare plan?
Does it still stand if you must give up 50% or more of your income in direct taxes, plus whatever amount you pay for every single product or service which pays for taxes for the folks who made those products or services happen?
Does it still stand if you are forced to pay taxes to have propaganda taught to your children in schools rather than an actual education?
Does it still stand if your 'religion' or lack of puts your on a terrorist watch list?
Does it still stand when people are murdered by the ATF or FBI over a supposed $200 tax issue in Idaho?
There was a man who went to visit a friend, whom was a preacher, in another place. When he got there, he found men had tied his friend up and beaten him almost to death because he did not have a 'license' or 'permit' from the government to be a minister. His friend died shortly after. He stood before Congress not long after this, and the speech he made was ended as written below.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry
We all have a choice in our lives of how to live it, and I certainly do not want to see a violent revolution in this country, which is why these tea parties are becoming so popular. It is a non-violent way to say "excuse me but we want answers" and ask that our cries be heard.
It isn't just about us, but about what world we leave our children. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
No, "not bound to obey" does not mean that. Civil disobedience is intentionally and publicly breaking the law in a non-violent manner to make a political point.johnwilliamson062 said:It means civil disobedience.
Whether or not it's okay is not the question. It still however is the law, and it's enforceable until a court says it's not. And if you object to the law, our system offers a number of ways to peaceably change things.skeezix said:From what I keep reading from a lot of you folks is that if Congress passes a law, the president agrees, and the courts say it is ok, then therefore it is ok regardless of the law....
In any case, who appointed you to decide if the law is or is not okay? And if you and a bunch of your buddies think it's not okay, but another bunch of citizens thinks it is, who decides? In real life, a court's opinion of whether a law is valid and enforceable trumps yours, because the court's opinion affects the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on whether a law is valid and enforceable and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Of course, if anyone wants to spout slogans and play armchair revolutionary, he's free to do so.
You know, that might even be why I wrote We all have a choice in our lives of how to live it.
I am quite thankful for this forum and to hear ideas of others, especially those who make me stretch a bit and think. As for armchair revolutionary, it applies accurately to people who speak and do nothing else. I hope no one is like that here, but sadly chances are that is probably the majority.
The largest and majority issues of our Declaration of Independence were centered around the abuses of executive, legislative and judicial powers. Kind of like today.
I am quite thankful for this forum and to hear ideas of others, especially those who make me stretch a bit and think. As for armchair revolutionary, it applies accurately to people who speak and do nothing else. I hope no one is like that here, but sadly chances are that is probably the majority.
The largest and majority issues of our Declaration of Independence were centered around the abuses of executive, legislative and judicial powers. Kind of like today.
SAF has issued this news release
Apparently they are girding their loins for the battle to come or they are going to try to try to apply the Montana model nationwide. Its a bit confusing the way they wrote the news release.
Dateline August 24, 2009
Apparently they are girding their loins for the battle to come or they are going to try to try to apply the Montana model nationwide. Its a bit confusing the way they wrote the news release.
Dateline August 24, 2009
NEWS RELEASE
Gun Groups to Sue over Montana-made and Retained Firearms
BELLEVUE, WA - the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have formed a strategic alliance to
litigate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA),
passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana
Governor Brian Schweitzer.
The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are
not subject to any federal authority, resisting Congress's
dramatically expanded use of the interstate commerce clause to
justify Washington's regulation of virtually all of the private
economy. The MFFA also applies to firearm accessories and ammunition.
MSSA is most well-known for advancing pro-gun and pro-hunting bills
in the Montana Legislature, and has been successful with 54 pro-gun
and pro-hunting measures in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun
foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights
of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to
numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.
The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to
federal power under the commerce clause. MSSA and SAF expect to
mount this legal challenge by filing a suit for a declaratory
judgment to test the principles of the MFFA in federal court on
October 1st, the day the Montana law becomes effective.
The concept of the Firearms Freedom Act has caught fire
nationwide. Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA. Other clones
have been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, Florida,
South Carolina, Minnesota and Michigan. Legislators in 19 other
states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones soon or
when their legislatures next convene. See: http://firearmsfreedomact.com
This wave of interest across the Nation is what the federal judiciary
calls "emerging consensus" and will play an important role in
validating the principles of the MFFA.
MSSA president Gary Marbut commented, "We're excited to get the MFFA
into court to articulate and argue the principles of freedom and
states' rights. It's especially encouraging that people in so many
other states are getting tickets to ride this particular freedom
train. It will be an interesting journey, and we hope successful one."
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added, "This is an issue that needs public
attention because it challenges federal intrusion into an area where
the federal government clearly, and literally, has no business."
The MSSA/SAF legal team is currently working up its arguments and
litigation strategy. The team has identified several areas of
rationale' that have never been discussed before in cases about
Congress's commerce clause power. The general thesis is that
Washington has gone way overboard in attempting to regulate the
internal affairs of states under the strained theory that states'
internal activities are related to interstate commerce.
Although the MFFA addresses firearms, ammunition and firearm
accessories specifically, it is primarily about states' rights and
the commerce clause power of Congress. Firearms are the object;
states' rights and freedom are the subject.