It has been reported Senators Adam Driggs and John McComish are preventing SB1112, The 2nd Amendment Preservation Bill, from consideration by the full Senate.
They “believe it is ‘unconstitutional’ to pass an Arizona Law that bans the federal government from violating the Second Amendment.”
Apparently, Sens. Driggs and McComish, as well as other Arizona elected and judiciary officials, are unfamiliar with the Constitution although all took a required oath to uphold it. They seem unaware the Constitution has been ratified as the supreme law of the land. Article VI states that to be valid, laws and treaties must be made “under the authority of the United States…”
The “Authority” is only that which is enumerated in the Constitution, granted by “consent of the governed” (the militia). Executives, legislators and judges ‘violating’ the Constitution, or aiding and abetting violation of it, are guilty of malfeasance of office and treason.
We expect Arizona to protect us from governments’ unlawful efforts to diminish and/or remove the Second Amendment’s inalienable “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” as well as the infringement of other individual rights.
We also expect Arizona to nullify all other federal laws increasingly outside the limits of the Constitution. It is past time the Arizona government restored state sovereignty.
Unfortunately, many who have experienced violence demand everyone give up liberty to ensure their own safety. No longer silent, the majority expects valid constitutional legislation rather than complicity with the loud will of special interest groups.
We are watching; we will act.
T.M. Eisenhauer
Scottsdale
downtownresident posted at 2:26 pm on Sat, Mar 16, 2013.
Oh, PLEASEEEEEEEE.
Lunatics like you scare me more than the feds.
I'll bet you want to secede, too.
truth posted at 2:27 pm on Sat, Mar 16, 2013.
Mexico confiscation of guns
By the 1960s, fear of the growing anti-government sentiment and the growing number of citizens arming themselves, prompted the government to modify Article 10 of the Constitution and to enact the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives. And so begun a systematic disarmament of the population by limiting gun ownership to small-caliber handguns, heavily restricting the right to carry outside the home, and ending a cultural attachment to firearms by shutting down gun stores, outlawing the private sale of firearms, closing down public shooting facilities, and putting in control of the federal government all firearm-related matters.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:53 pm on Sat, Mar 16, 2013.
two problems beyond the fact that if it is passed and signed, will quickly be declared unconsitutional:
1. The majority in Heller agreed that there are "reasonable limitations" to the Second Amendment -- that majority included Justices Thomas and Scalia
2. The bill -- you can read its summary here -- http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/1r/summary/s.1112ps.doc.htm&Session_ID=110 --
would preclude officials from enlarging the list of folks deemed mentally unfit to own guns. Arizona is currently one of the worst states in the country for reporting that condition to the federal database used by gunshops to screen buyers.
So the folks who argue that it's the people who cause the problems with guns and not the guns themselves would prevent gun stores and gun show sellers from seeing an expanded database of the mentally unfit to buy in AZ.
Brilliant!
Rich posted at 7:45 pm on Sat, Mar 16, 2013.
"1. The majority in Heller agreed that there are "reasonable limitations" to the Second Amendment -- that majority included Justices Thomas and Scalia."
Actually, the Justices should have recused themselves and didn't. They are government officials for whom the 2nd Amendment is a check. It is therefore a prejudiced decision.
The Second Amendment is simply another check and balance built into a system where the system is wobbled if it is. Doing things in this manner is both unwise and indicates a pretty deep ignorance of systems and their stability. Carefully changing the system over a century or so might work, going at it piecemeal in this fashion just basically destroys the system.
sockratties posted at 7:56 pm on Sat, Mar 16, 2013.
How red-neck can they get?
onerebel posted at 11:09 pm on Sat, Mar 16, 2013.
What a sad state of our country when we need to try and pass laws that would protect us from our governments attempt to circumvent the Constitution. It's even sadder that some people support the governments attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:41 am on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
So now Marbury v. Madison has been rejected . . .
calling Ted Cruz . . .
Rich posted at 8:32 am on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
No Mike, stop running to radical interpretations of everything to make an argument. It's rather childish. Nothing about most decisions made by SCOTUS are personally threatening, when they are it is time for the court to recuse itself and let the Constitution alone decide the matter.
Mike McClellan posted at 11:29 am on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
I'll let others decide if someone who rejects 200 years of judicial review is someone to lecture about "childish"
Leon Ceniceros posted at 11:32 am on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
Folks,
As you can see there are two sides to this 2nd Amendment Issue;
Patriotic citizens like Mr. Eisenhauer and other America-Loving citizens,
on the other side there are the,
Marxists, Socialists, Leftwing-Liberals, Commie Wanna-Be's and other assorted Democrats
Mike McClellan posted at 12:04 pm on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
Hey, Leon.
You no doubt believe it's the people not the guns that cause the problems.
And Sen. Jeff Flake's working on legislation that will make getting the seriously mentally ill on the "do not sell" lists.
But if the bill the writer applauds passes, anyone who tries to enforce that will be prosecuted on a Class 6 felony, a year in the pokie.
You okay with that, that AZ will be the gun haven for the seriously mentally ill, that future Jared Loughners won't be reported to any national database because of the bill the writer extols?
valleynative posted at 12:13 pm on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
Mike, you really ought to take a few minutes and actually read the existing laws.
It's already illegal in Arizona to sell a gun to anybody who is mentally ill. This bill just correctly points out that such rules are the domain of the States and not of the federal government.
Maybe you should take a few more minutes to read the Constitution, while you're at it.
Mike McClellan posted at 2:50 pm on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
Valley, you should read how the only ones reported for mental health prohibition are the ones who have "been adjudicated as mentally incompetent."
Flake's bill expands the definition of who would be declared "mentally incompetent."
Under existing AZ law, Loughner was perfectly legal in buying his weapons and ammo. And folks like him would continue to be in AZ.
Flake's bill would put the Loughner's of the country on a "no sell" list. Except, if the letter writer's bill passes, in AZ.
While you're at it, maybe you should read Scalia's opinion in Heller, while you're at it, where he notes the Founders believed in limits to the Second Amendment.
Here's a link to a synopsis of the majority opinion (written by Scalia) --
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/50849/district-columbia-v-heller-scalias-majority-opinion/ed-whelan
valleynative posted at 4:59 pm on Sun, Mar 17, 2013.
Mike,if you're going to take away a person's Constitutional right, there had very well have been some "adjudication" of his mental status. The Loughners out there absolutely MUST retain all of their rights until they have been taken away by a judge. That means we need major improvements in detecting such people and getting them examined. Life just isn't as easy as you and some others would like it to be.
Rich posted at 6:46 am on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
So Mike, now you attack 'due process'? Once again, in your considered opinion, the government can place you on a list, stigmatize you and deny you your rights, and then, if they don't decide to drop a drone on your head, disarm you? What kind of totalitarianism don't you accept? Government can disarm you, basically on a whim, put your name on a hit list, and deny you access to medical care? And all this you champion? Gee Mike are you going to tell them to form a death squad to make sure we hang our TP correctly?
Mike McClellan posted at 7:25 am on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
Maybe Rich and Valley should read Flake's legislation before jumping to conclusions.
Of course, it's more fun to advance a fictitious narrative than to deal with reality, right Rich?
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:45 am on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
Mike,
Even you...even you know that a shotgun's, rifle's or pistol's trigger must be depressed to fire a weapon.
GUNS DON'T GO OFF BY THEMSELVES.....GUNS DON'T KILL....PEOPLE DO.
valleynative posted at 10:21 am on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
I've read Flake's bill, or rather, excerpts. It would add some more people who have been judged incompetent or mentally ill to the database regardless of whether they have been judged to also be dangerous. Those who have been judged dangerous are already banned in Arizona. If the State of Arizona wants to extend the restriction, then that's our right, but is outside the Constitutional scope of powers of the federal government.
Rich posted at 12:15 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
I read it before I made the comment Mike. It bypasses due process in some cases, and basically allows a label, rather than due process of law to deny a citizen a Constitutional right. You keep extending governmental power in this way, and none of us will be safe, as the power will corrupt, as it always does. I don't agree with valley on the fact Arizona can do it. If you read the second amendment arms are a power reserved to the people, not states. Power not reserved to the Feds belongs to the states and the people, and the second amendment in stating ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." takes it off the board for both state and federal governments. It is a right only the people have.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:45 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
It's clear you didn't, Rich, because the legislation requires adjudication by a court, which means, of course, the person involved has legal representation. In fact, the bill explicitly states that the person involved has notice and counsel.
You didn't read squat, because even if you had just read news articles about it, you'd have known that Flake's legislation involves due process. And if you do understand the legislation, then you are deceiving readers about its effect.
By the way, that crazy Big Government group the NRA endorses the legislation.
valleynative posted at 2:01 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
It "involves" due process, but not completely enough. When a judge rules that a person is not guilty by reason of insanity, he has the option at that time to also rule that he is a danger to himself or others and have him committed. If he doesn't make that ruling, then it's hard to see how "due process" was involved in deciding that he can't own a firearm. If he does make that ruling, then the point is moot, because he's already prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Insanity as a mitigating factor does NOT NECESSARILY mean that you are dangerous. Life isn't like the TV dramas.
The NRA backs the bill because they're more interested in preserving gun rights than states rights.
Bluepoet posted at 2:06 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
So, which part of government is overstepping it's constitutional role, here? Is it the judicial branch, for interpreting constitutional law, or the congressional branch, for interpreting the adjudication? Who is trying to circumvent what here? And, since when does a State legislative body supercede the Supreme Court, in any matter of law? This would be struck down as fast as it passed. It's a waste of time and resources to even discuss it..
valleynative posted at 3:07 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
Congress is overstepping by imposing any regulations on sales that are not interstate commerce.
Rich posted at 7:18 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
Mike,
Due process doesn't only require what, it requires why. What the bill risks is that, used as a political tool, it allows a label to remove a right, without a rationale for it. "Terrorists" get a drone dropped on them. Get labeled, without any evidence you are a danger to yourself or anyone else, you are defenseless and subject to a drone on your head. I was once thrown in a jail for selling the first edition of "Lolita" (two volume paperback, Olympia Press, Paris). I was released the next morning, but I carry a label. Even today. I know Pandora's box, and Mr. Flake is opening it.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:47 pm on Mon, Mar 18, 2013.
My God, can you read? The bill doesn't redefine mental incompetency, it only allows other adjudicated (with counsel, hearing, and right to appeal) cases to go on the list.
It changes nothing in our judicial system.
Rich, do you also go by "Leon" on this site?
Or maybe "Rand," since you've adopted the Black Helicopter/Drone Strike While You're Sitting in a Restaurant in America paranoia.
Of course, you're the same one who argues that the Justices shouldn't even hear this case because it could apply to them. An interesting judicial concept, since so many of the cases they hear could, potentially.
Rich posted at 7:24 pm on Tue, Mar 19, 2013.
I can read. To take a Constitutional right takes what? A label by a psychiatrist? Mike you want a government that takes care of you, coddles you, pays you more than you are worth and gives you a better retirement than millionaires have. So you take up their cause. Our government is limited, it was limited by some brilliant men who believed that the government that governs least, governs best. Even judicial review is a political power grab and isn't part of the conception. Championing a corruption, because it has been in place for such a long time doesn't make it right. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to create a power bloc that acts as a check and balance, and because it is reserved to the 'people' government, Federal, State, Local has no say in it. Government chips away at it, because it threatens them. It limits corruption, because it limits power. That is its real purpose, and part of the reason we are in the mess we are in. With Obamacare the government can force you to pay a private company, and only one person got shot for her vote on it? That's already gun control.
IAB posted at 10:38 am on Wed, Mar 20, 2013.
Mike How about we start enforcing existing laws BEFORE we write or pass new one;s. Go ask any FFL holder what happens when a person prohibited from purchasing tries to buy a gun from them.......NOTHING. Start enforcing laws already on the books!!!!
Mike McClellan posted at 5:02 pm on Wed, Mar 20, 2013.
This is about how poorly some states report the mentally disabled to the database. AZ has about 200,000 folks who've been adjudicated as mentally unable to buy a gun but the state hasn't reported them to the database.
You okay with that?
IAB posted at 5:41 pm on Wed, Mar 20, 2013.
No As I stated before START enforcing the current laws! Nothing proposed will stop a criminal from buying a hot gun. Not one. Demonize the PEOPLE committing the crimes not what they used.
Rich posted at 10:02 pm on Wed, Mar 20, 2013.
Mike,
Adjudicated here is a bored civil servant accepting the word of someone who is credentialed. And we all know how you feel about credentials. Only a jury should ever be allowed to remove a right bestowed by the Constitution.
bobunf posted at 10:35 pm on Wed, Mar 20, 2013.
Some posters here seem to feel that an armed citizenry are a deterrent to a tyrannical government. That is just silly. You can't use machine guns to oppose an entity armed with 10,000 nuclear warheads.
There is no historical example in the 19th, 20th or 21st century in which firearms indigenously held by citizens overthrew a government. The Russians used chucks of ice against the Tsar.
At best an armed citizenry would be a nuisance to a tyrant. At worst, an aid to suppress a minority. See the American South in the 19th, early and mid 20th centuries. And innumerable examples of persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe by armed citizens.
Opposing tyranny with your own weapon is a ridiculous fantasy as evidenced by the historical record. Grow up people.
sockratties posted at 9:11 am on Thu, Mar 21, 2013.
bob… You just don’t understand. It’s not the guns, it’s the image. Just like having a big 4 wheel drive pick ‘em-up-truck with a high lift kit and mud tires that never gets farther off road than a driveway at about 7 mpg. Put a couple of impressive guns in a window rack and you got yourself some major braggin’ rights. It’s not about 2nd amendment rights, it’s about braggin’ rights. (And money for big auto, big oil and gun manufacturing companies).
Rich posted at 12:22 pm on Thu, Mar 21, 2013.
"There is no historical example in the 19th, 20th or 21st century in which firearms indigenously held by citizens overthrew a government."
A few from the nineteenth century: Serbian revolution 1804-1817; Guerra de la Independencia Española 1808 - 1814; The West Florida rebellion 1810; Mexican War of Independence 1810–1821; Pernambucan Revolt 1817; War of Independence in Peru 1820-1824; Greek War of Independence 1821-1832; Republican Revolution in Mexico 1822-1823; July Revolution 1830; Belgian Revolution 1830; Texas War of Independence 1835-1836; Caste War of Yucatán 1847-1883; February Revolution 1848; Reform War 1857-1861; Meiji Restoration 1868; Paris Commune 1871; Herzegovina Uprising 1875–1878
For the 20th and 21st I limited myself to one a decade:Constitutional Revolution of Iran 1905-1907; Xinhai Revolution 1911; 28 May coup d'état, 1926; Siamese Revolution 1932; Italian resistance movement, 1943--1945; Cuban Revolution 1956-1959; Rhodesian Bush War 1964-1979, Carnation Revolution 1974; People Power Revolution 1986; Ethiopian Civil War, 1991; Bulldozer Revolution 2000; as to the current decade pick any successful Arab Spring revolt.
All these conflicts tipped on the power of an armed populace. I only referenced successful ones and they are just a small sample. Making sweeping generalizations about history is somewhat unwise as there are no such generalizations that can't be exploded.