Yea baby lets here it for Ohio. show your support
http://ohio.tenthamendmentcenter.co...eizure-forced-registration-and-potential-ban/
http://ohio.tenthamendmentcenter.co...eizure-forced-registration-and-potential-ban/
Ohio joins Texas and others
- Thread starter 17ghk
- Start date
Thank you for bringing this bill to the forum here.
I emailed the bills sponsor and co-sponsor to personally thank them for introducing SB36 to protect our second amendment rights!
Buckeyes please take the 5 minutes to send an email to our elected officials to express the support of this bill!
Thank you and God bless.
I emailed the bills sponsor and co-sponsor to personally thank them for introducing SB36 to protect our second amendment rights!
Buckeyes please take the 5 minutes to send an email to our elected officials to express the support of this bill!
Thank you and God bless.
dogtown tom
New member
You realize these state laws have zero effect on FEDERAL law, right?
How so? Ky waited but now finally introduced a bill based on the fact that some other bill about guns they were going to pass might hinder federal enforcement in the state. Of course now thats not a concern since its what they want to do.
As far as I know unless power is specifically given to the Feds by the Constitution which 2A isnt then it is reserved to the states or the people.
As far as I know unless power is specifically given to the Feds by the Constitution which 2A isnt then it is reserved to the states or the people.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
If the law has teeth and is enforced it will. Federal agents do not have immunity from state and local laws. I gather there isn't much support in Columbus.
UtahHunting
New member
Didn't Ohio just introduce a bill to ban all magazines 10 rounds and over?
Yes, but S.B. 18 (assault weapon bill) has very little chance from what I have been hearing back from my senator.
Bravo! The states need to stand up and protect the rights that are rightfully theirs and not let the federal government trample on them. After all it is the United STATES of America and not Obamaland. Most of the power was intended to remain with the state governments with the federal government having a few limited powers rather than the massive power grab that the Feds continually pursue.
Maybe so - maybe not.
A passage of state laws would send a clear message to a senator of exactly how the people of his/her state really thought.
In this case, both of the Ohio senators are on board with more federal gun control and will work to see it passed.
If "we the people" of Ohio say we don't want it, then they should back off.
dogtown tom
New member
Didn't anyone pay attention in history class?
When in performance of their official duties they do.
Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
See above.
When in performance of their official duties they do.
Read your own country's Constitution.....this has nothing to do with Obama.
KEY POINT ^^^
This is where the real fight will be, but first the challenge must be made.
I keep a copy of it on my dresser for almost daily perusal. Where do you keep your most available copy?
BTW, Obama is the figurehead for the anti movement. Everything bad is his fault because he is the current President. When or if he leaves office everything bad will be the fault of the next President. That is the way it seems to work in this nation.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
New member
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Until the USSC rules differently, these state firearm freedom laws carry no weight.
What challenge?
The US Supreme Court has been there, done that.(and did so loooong ago)
In my bookcase.
Tom, Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems to me that you are good with the federal government's continual power grab. If so, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I personally feel the federal government over reaches it authority way too often and that it should be watched diligently. This is why I feel federal enforcement of constitutionally questionable laws should always be challenged. End of discussion for me. Thank you.
Make sure to contact these boobs and tell them to stick there gun grabbing laws. here is one SB 18 awb. I called the senators that sponsored this bill and told them that we all don't want there inner city politics in the rest of the state. One told me that guns already owned are grandfathered in and not affected only future sales banned. Thats not what I see anyway. Oh boy they must think we are all as stupid as those inner city flunkies they represent.
Here is the link
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_SB_18
Here is the link
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=130_SB_18
dogtown tom
New member
Correct, you DO misunderstand.
The point I am making is that these state firearm freedom laws are MEANINGLESS. They are simply political pandering with no value other than symbolic chest beating.
Would you be as excited if you state legislature passed a law saying "we absolutely refuse to enforce federal immigration law".......Before you answer realize that states DON"T enforce federal immigration laws.......the FEDS do.
The "power grab" BTW occured DECADES ago, this is nothing new.
Don't like a FEDERAL law.....you change it via FEDERAL court or Congressional action. Getting excited by a state passing a hot air balloon is a waste of time.
@dogtown tom
I respect your opinion and understand your view point but i would just like to add something to the debate. It's a fact that a movement/stand can gain momentum and support when states stand up for the will(rights) of its people which can and will influence the debate. I believe if more states took a stand to the federal governments over reach of power then the people in Washington would be changed for the better.
This reason alone is while I would support what what you regard as "meaningless". Legally you may be right but that is something that I believe will have to play out in the courts.
If states have the "right" to ban pretty much any semi-automatic gun then why would they not have the right to pass laws that would refute such a ban. I don't claim to be a legal expert by any means but to me it's something that should be pursued along with many other efforts
I just don't think it's right to dismiss a states ability(not matter what the issue is) to at least try to have some sort of sovereignty with in these United States.
I respect your opinion and understand your view point but i would just like to add something to the debate. It's a fact that a movement/stand can gain momentum and support when states stand up for the will(rights) of its people which can and will influence the debate. I believe if more states took a stand to the federal governments over reach of power then the people in Washington would be changed for the better.
This reason alone is while I would support what what you regard as "meaningless". Legally you may be right but that is something that I believe will have to play out in the courts.
If states have the "right" to ban pretty much any semi-automatic gun then why would they not have the right to pass laws that would refute such a ban. I don't claim to be a legal expert by any means but to me it's something that should be pursued along with many other efforts
I just don't think it's right to dismiss a states ability(not matter what the issue is) to at least try to have some sort of sovereignty with in these United States.
I can't agree at all with that.
Laws passed on the state level show our elected ones in DC how the voters really feel.
Sen. Sherrod Brown is going to vote for more federal gun control.
Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman has said he's open to the gun control issue.
All the letters in the world aren't going to change Brown's stance.
Letters may sway Portman - but - one of those, as you call them, MEANINGLESS laws would send a clear message that we mean business & he better not get too comfortable in his DC office.