Sure, let's make a law to enforce a law that already exists. Makes sense.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
National Preemption
- Thread starter eye95
- Start date
Sure, let's make a law to enforce a law that already exists. Makes sense.
eye95
Well-known member
No, let’s make a law that stops laws that infringe. That punishes those who would pass them. The 2A has no consequence for violating it. Let’s put some punitive teeth in the protection of our Right.
How do you al feel about your State preemption laws? Do you dislike them so intensely? Personally, I like the idea of being able to punish cities that try to legislate away my Right. I’d kinda like to punish the States too.
Oh, wait, that would require a federal law.
____
On edit: This is kinda the whole point: Prohibit the States from infringing—and punish them if they do. For anyone to criticize* my repeating the main idea when others keep misstating it (as requiring the States to enforce a federal law) is kinda trollish. But, trolls do troll.
*see below
How do you al feel about your State preemption laws? Do you dislike them so intensely? Personally, I like the idea of being able to punish cities that try to legislate away my Right. I’d kinda like to punish the States too.
Oh, wait, that would require a federal law.
____
On edit: This is kinda the whole point: Prohibit the States from infringing—and punish them if they do. For anyone to criticize* my repeating the main idea when others keep misstating it (as requiring the States to enforce a federal law) is kinda trollish. But, trolls do troll.
*see below
Last edited:
eye95, you have not stated anything of substance this entire thread except you wanta law to punish states, cities, those who believe in the flat earth concept, etc..
The oxen your beating died a long time ago!
Let's not forget how powerful the withholding of federal funds can be. Why did all of the states lower their max speed limit to 55 mph back in the 70's? Because the fed said that if they didn't lower it to 55, then federal highway funds would be withheld. The National Maximum Speed Law of '74 was passed in response to the fuel crisis to prohibit speeds higher than 55 mph. At first, many states opposed it but with the threat of withholding of funds plus the added revenue benefit of charging those going over 55, as they were used to, with speeding violations, the states folded.
I know it's off subject but if the feds passed a national preemption law and threatened the states with the withholding of funds because they didn't follow it...
I know it's off subject but if the feds passed a national preemption law and threatened the states with the withholding of funds because they didn't follow it...
eye95
Well-known member
I actually detest federal funding for State programs. It allows the feds to usurp State authority.
I’d love to see an amendment prohibiting the sending of federal funds to the States. If a State sees a need to fund a program, it should tax its residents, not the residents of other States!
_
On edit: BTW, bbMurphy, thank you for your rational responses. Others can learn from you what useful discussion looks like.
I’d love to see an amendment prohibiting the sending of federal funds to the States. If a State sees a need to fund a program, it should tax its residents, not the residents of other States!
_
On edit: BTW, bbMurphy, thank you for your rational responses. Others can learn from you what useful discussion looks like.
Last edited:
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Now you are arguing against yourself.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
I’m not. Your just either being dense or deliberately provocative. I believe the latter. BTW, that is called trolling.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
What federal funds are the states receiving to implement their conceal carry licensing programs? None. So, there is nothing to withhold.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
You are just a funny guy.
eye95
Well-known member
And you are trolling.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Your trolling again. Stop trolling.
What I'd kinda trollish I'd to keep floating an idea that cannot be constitutionall done.
Trust the states radically anti gun enough to ignore this fantasy law are going to ignore it fed money or no. By besides a court challange these days keeps the fed money flowing.
Since no " teeth ' can constitutionally be inserted into this law, and the law itself is useless this whole discussion is an exercise in futility.
yeaaa...the olde eye95 before being put on hiatus...circling the drain once again...getting the popcorn and soft drink ...
That might be going a bit far.
The Fed has no wealth. Owns nothing and has no money except that which it seals from citizens with a voluntary turned mandatory income tax and what it can steal from the states.
Whenever it returns money to the states it's only giving back money that was never rightfully the feds to begin with.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
It's the truth, but I don't think this truth will set you free.
Likely not.
But it's why I don't begrudge states or individuals getting aid from the Fed.
1. The Fed uses a tax it got passed as temporary and voluntary ,then turned mandatory , to gain most of its loot.
2. If it didn't give some to the states and individuals here , It would simply use it to persecute more citizens here to increase its power, or give it to foreign entities whose greatest wish is to see us all dead.
CJ4wd
Regular Member
Considering how "well" many places are complying with federal immigration laws, what indications does anybody have that "national preemption" will do any better?
eye95
Well-known member
Thanks for the question. You are proving that rational discussion is possible on OCDO.
Just as in Ohio, lawsuits would be the prime method of enforcement and for assessing penalties. There have been a few successful lawsuits, one of which resulted in damages being awarded. HB228 (2018) beefed up ORC 9.68, broadening the types of damages that could be awarded.
Egregious cases should result in criminal charges. There, of course, would be a higher burden of proof, including showing intent to violate preemption.
Preemption works. We just need to do it at the national level.
What about it cannot be last constitutionally or legally done by the Feds don't you get?
State preemption is a totally different thing and it does work on a state level. Ky is a prime example of it.
But the FED cannot constitutionally require squat of a state. Period.
There is nothing to discuss with n your idea except in theory because it CANNOT be done.
eye95
Well-known member
What about National Preemption does not require squat of a State do you not get?
National Preemption prohibits behavior, and would define penalties for behavior that violates the prohibition.
____
Folks this tweet and the one to which I am responding are examples of a not useful way to debate on OCDO. The two posts immediately above are examples of useful debate.
A good rule of thumb: If you want people to treat you respectfully, treat them respectfully.
National Preemption prohibits behavior, and would define penalties for behavior that violates the prohibition.
____
Folks this tweet and the one to which I am responding are examples of a not useful way to debate on OCDO. The two posts immediately above are examples of useful debate.
A good rule of thumb: If you want people to treat you respectfully, treat them respectfully.