GOP to Nullify State-Level Gun Controls

Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced legislation Monday aimed at nullifying state-level gun controls that exceed gun controls put in place by the federal government.
New York’s SAFE Act (2013) is a prime example of the kind of gun control Collins hopes to erase.

WKBW reports Collins’ bill is titled the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), and its language explicitly “[limits] the authority of states to regulate conduct, or impose penalties or taxes in relation to rifles or shotguns.” It is designed to catch laws that go beyond federal statutes and render them void.

According to the Buffalo News, Collins described SAGA, saying, “This legislation would protect the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers that were unjustly taken away by Andrew Cuomo. I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and have fought against all efforts to condemn these rights. I stand with the law-abiding citizens of this state that have been outraged by the SAFE Act and voice my commitment to roll back these regulations.”

Breitbart News reported that the SAFE Act was signed in the wake of the heinous attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. It is a package of gun controls that include firearm registration, an “assault rifles” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, and an expansion of background checks. None of these laws would have prevented the attack on Sandy Hook, as the key component of the attack was not the weapon used but the amount of time the attacker had before he faced armed resistance.

 

Read More

 


source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/31/gop-rep-introduces-legislation-to-nullify-state-level-gun-controls/

  • Alan404

    Best of luck to the representative, plus like minded others.

    • patricksperry

      Contacted my Congress critter, asked her to co-sponsor it with an amendment to include hand guns.

  • vladilyich

    While in the instance of defending the second amendment this is a good thing, it presents a VERY dangerous precedent to the 10th amendment and State’s Rights. If the federal government can nullify state laws at will, where will it stop?

    • Skyhawk

      When the States stop coming up with laws that are in violation of the Constitution. Isn’t that a novel idea?

      • Hunt

        I agree. This should only ever be applicable to Constitutional rights where a state has overreached.

    • Alan404

      Point taken. that said, since the courts seem unwilling or unable to enforce constitutional guarantees, who is left?

    • Alan404

      If the states can nullify constitutional stipulations/guarantees,same question applies

  • ChemTeacher

    With luck this legislation will pass and be signed into law. That is when the fireworks really start when the states like New York, New Jersey and California try to fight the law in the courts. I would like to see the Handgun roster, Assault weapon ban and magazine limitations go away. Why can I not buy a Colt .380 Government in California? It is not on the roster, no other reason.

    • SoJerSailor

      That’s really a shame. The 380 Gov is a sweet little pistol. Years out of production, and still in demand on the 2nd hand market. My favorite concealed carry.

      • ChemTeacher

        I like it because it handles just like the 1911 but w/o the grip safety all manual of arms is the same for it including misfeeds jams etc

        • testbench

          I have one I bought in 1993 for $350.00 brand new at a gun store nice little shooter, I have seen them as high as $1100.00 Stainless

    • Alan404

      The congressman’s proposal number is H.R. 3576, according to his office. Have you contacted your congressional rep.?

    • Terry Butts

      As long as they can keep anti gun politicians from altering the intent of the law during the process as we have seen happen to so many other good at the start bills before they became law.

  • jeff

    I hope this law passes. The CA legislature would have a coronary en mass.

    • onyxtiger

      One could only hope they all passed away. I’m speaking as a Californian that is being drowned by the liberal legislature illogical, ill-advised, and just plain stupid laws.

    • Alan404

      Have you contacted your congressional rep. and U.S. Senators? IF not, why not?

      • Ursus_Indomitus

        You’re not a Californio, are you? Our legislators don’t give a rat’s rass about our rights. All they care about is subjugation and CONTROL.

        • Alan404

          No I’m not, but what’s the difference. As to getting the splintery end from your legislators when the same crew is returned to office, and or obviously poor choices are made, can you expect otherwise?

          • patricksperry

            I left California in 1978, and it has only become worse since then!

          • Ursus_Indomitus

            Mostly by election fraud. And a large, moronic Dem base.

          • Ursus_Indomitus

            DNC chicanery.

          • Alan404

            Even Democratic bums can be voted out of office, right?

  • Elizabeth Johnson

    The “Rule of Law” is that a State CANNOT supercede a Federal law, a County or City CANNOT supercede a State law. A State or local jurisdiction can add to it in a reinforcing manner. But Cannot supercede or override the law.

    An example is school zone speed limits. Lets say Federal and State law says the speed limit will 25. A city or county cannot change that on Federal or State roads. However on a locally controlled road they can change it to 15. So if the Federal government says you can carry a weapon in National Parks. The State cannot change that. But they can ban weapons in State parks. If the FAA says you cannot carry a weapon on an interstate (national) flight. A State cannot change that. The State can say you can carry a weapon on a Intrastate (local within state) flight.

    If Congress passes a law that allows citizens (non criminals) to carry a weapon not concealed in public spaces. A State cannot change that. The same would apply to concealed weapons. A State could ban carrying weapons on State property or non public spaces.

    Either way it would and will be complicated and open to interpretation.

    • Snake

      You’re not even close to correct! First of all your examples of gun laws are ALL violations of the second amendment, whether state, city, or federal. 2) ALL of the states ratified the Constitution to become a state, that means they agreed to abide by/uphold the Constitution and cannot legally create ANY LAW that violates it. 3) state parks and federal/national parks are NOT owned by the governments, they are owned by the people. The federal and state governments are entrusted to maintain and protect those lands and wildlife, but cannot violate our rights. The only properties that government “OWNS” are the administrative buildings used for doing their jobs, and those are the only locations that they have authority to restrict.

      The one thing that is wrong with this bill is that it allows the government to continue with it’s unconstitutional gun laws!

      • Elizabeth Johnson

        Right and WRONG One can argue that everything is owned by the PEOPLE. However that is not the case and would be laughed out of the courts.

        Federal Jurisdictions are
        1, Exclusive – The U S Government owns the land and enforces the laws. NO local jurisdiction
        2, Concurrent – The land is owned by the U S Government but the local LE has joint jurisdiction
        3, Proprietary. The US Government owns the land and buildings. The local jurisdiction has jurisdiction and Federal LE enforces federal laws and sometimes are deputized by local LE to enforce state or local laws.

        Most National Parks and roadways are Proprietary. However some are exclusive and local LE cannot enforce or do anything on them. All Military bases are Exclusive. There maybe avery exceptions but rare. This does not include National Guard bases.

        If you seriously think you can enter an exclusive owned property because you represent the PEOPLE. Good luck with that.

        • daniel wright

          The US government doesn’t “OWN” the land their buildings are on. The people (their bosses) do. Government properties were paid for and are maintained by tax payer dollars,not by government employees or officials. The government serves at the pleasure of the people,not the other way around. They are “PUBLIC SERVANTS” It’s high time they started to act like it!!! Military bases and other vital areas are restricted to qualified personnel for security reasons as it should be,but the elitist attitude of people like Obama, Hillary,Jerry Moonbeam,Pelosi and MadMaxine Waters needs to cease,PERIOD!!!!

          • Elizabeth Johnson

            The Government may work for the People. But the name on the Property Tittle is the U S Government or Department or Agency.

            You are splitting hairs and just a simpleton

          • daniel wright

            What hairs Liz? I’m a simpleton. Look in the mirror showflake!! The USA is not the nation of,by and for the government no matter how much you wish it were. If you want everything owned and controlled by the government I suggest N. Korea.

          • Elizabeth Johnson

            How dare you call a “Snowflake” I am Native American and you speak with forked tongue. But then again Trump talks with the tongue of Octopus tentacles.

            Good nite Mate

          • daniel wright

            I call them as I see them. You called me a simpleton for no reason and I am native to this country too. I’m not a member of an Indian tribe but what makes you think that designation makes you better than me? My family has been here for hundreds of years. Your family came here from somewhere else too so get off your high horse (pun intended).

          • Terry Butts

            It would have been simpler to point to the section in the constitution that states the amount of land the federal government is allowed to own and restricts what purpose that land can be owned.

            Most cases of land the federal government claims to own they have no title, bill of sale or deed saying they actually own it they simply were tasked with managing the land and decided that meant they could claim to own it as if the caretaker hired to maintain a home could claim it as their property and keep the owners from using the place.

          • daniel wright

            Yes: Ours is a government of,by and for THE PEOPLE. We ARE the government. Elected and appointed officials are our employees. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS,not rulers. They work for us in buildings paid for by and on land owned by US!!

    • Alan404

      As to such legislation being “complicated”, that would depend on how it was written. In lawyers talk, likely it would be complicated, however in plain English, which legislators seem bound and determined to avoid, I wonder why, I expect not at all complicated or open to “interpretation” either.

  • Marmaru

    Guys, you do realize that the first 10 Amendments don’t grant the people ANY “rights”? What the first 10 Amendments are about is that the federal government, their employees, and contractors can NOT legislate, decree, or “rule” beyond the clear and concise LIMITS that are the statements!
    “These are the chains that bind them” is how Thomas Jefferson said it. His reasoning was based on his understanding that the first 10 Amendments were the clear LIMITS to the authority and autonomy of the federal government.
    If you read what Madison and Henry were saying when they proposed what became the first 10 Amendments, they were afraid (correctly) that the Common Law (which was never codified or even defined,,, LEGALLY) would or could be worked around with the attorney’s and political hacks. They were afraid (correctly) that future generations would forget the basic meaning of the Constitution due to political conditioning. For this reason they installed the LIMITS, clear and concise that the people could simply tell the government to blow it out their ___, if they made legislation, “rules/”laws”, “rulings” or decrees that violated these LIMITS.
    The linchpin for this is the Oath of Office. An Oath is a LEGAL AND BINDING CONTRACT!! To violate the Oath is a CRIME! This is where the schools, media, and government have done US wrong. Somehow, over the years (probably starting with the 14th Amendment, which is written like an attorneys legal “brief” and pointed at the people instead of the government) government, the media, and We The People have accepted that the so called Bill of Rights are rules/”laws” for the people and not the government. This is of course backwards. However, this allows the so called supreme court to “interpret” the “law” laid down in the first 10 Amendments and apply it to legislation, decrees, or “rulings”.
    What this has done is put the government outside the mandate of the Constitution. The Constitution is the format for the government. The “enumerated powers” are the job profile for the different branches and their duties. The first 10 Amendments are the LIMITS to the authority and autonomy of the federal government, their employees, and contractors.
    When you or I allow the “supreme court” to rule on the Common Law, or “the law” (9th Amendment), we are granting the government an authority that they do not possess, legally. This is outside of Constitutional Law which applys to the government, NOT the people. We The People are to be under a Common Law (Civil Law) system. Criminal Law is for the government. If you can follow this, then you can see how arbitrary the legal system is and how the Powers That Be can continually make rules/”laws” and apply them to the people through the government that “legalized” their behaviour and institutionalizes corruption. They simply make it legal and it falls under the heading of POLITICS.
    Again, the crux of the problem and linchpin for correction is the Oath of Office. To Oath is to agree to the Oath and understand that to violate the Oath is a CRIME! This is where they are vulnerable. Take the “patriot act” as an example. It clearly violates or “amends” the 4th Amendment. How can a body that is limited to living within the 4th Amendment, LEGISLATE away this restriction? Remember, it takes a SUCCESSFUL AMENDMENT PROCESS to add to, subtract from, or alter the Constitution in any manner or form. The State legislatures must ratify any and all Amendments or alterations to the Constitution,,, PERIOD!! That is Constitutional LAW. That is the purpose for the Oath of Office. That is the POWER that We The People have. It does not take the government to impose a Civil suit for the violation of the Oath.
    NDAA of 2011, 12′, 13′, 14′,,, with the section 1021 threatening to eliminate Habeous Corpus and indefinite detention. Remember the 3 to 4 months prior to Oblamo signing this that he threatened to veto it because the fight was whether the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch had the “authority” to impose this on the American people? Remember the fear from the so called “freedom movement”? WTF!! A pork filled APPROPRIATIONS BILL, with riders attached, is LEGISLATED, that can effectively suspend the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Amendments??? Legislation altering the Constitution? When did We The People allow the Amendment Process to be shelved?
    Playing politics with the world central banking scheme through the federal government is a fools errand. They have all the bullets. They have the media. They have the kids in schools and most of the “professors”. They own the politicians, the court systems, they have the attorneys believing in criminal “law” instead of “Natural Law”. In other words, digging around in their cat-box will only reveal one thing. And, it ain’t “Natural Law”, “the law”, or the Common Law. (essentially “do all you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property”, or something akin to this simple yet profound statement of LAW/decency)
    Educate yourselves on the Oath of Office as the hammer or sword over those who swore or affirmed this. It is not simply a smarmy little ceremony. It is a PROMISE, A VOW, A GIVING OF ONE’S WORD OF HONOR! Use this!! For, this is the purpose of the Oath.

  • daniel wright

    I see the new law wouldn’t cover handguns. The last time I checked handguns were firearms protected under the second amendment. The bill should be amended to include them too.

    • SoJerSailor

      So call / email your Rep and hammer him to get that done!
      WE NEED OUR 2A RIGHTS !!!

      • daniel wright

        That’s a tough sell in my state;”Taxifornia” But I will call.

  • Philip James

    I hope they add the ammo into the bill, since California is trying to due away with ammo.

    • Alan404

      Have you contacted your congress person? If not, why?

  • Alan404

    A bill number of reference would be helpful

  • Alan404

    The congressman’s proposal number is as follows, obtained via a phone call to his D.C. office. H.R. 3576

  • Alan404

    Just a quick comment to others who have posted here. Obtained via a quick phone call to his office, Congressman’s Collins bill number is H.R. 3576. Don’t know how much of a chance of passage this proposal might have, but one never knows till one tries.

  • CBUJAN

    New York being a liberal state it will be very hard to pass.

    • Alan404

      The bills proposer is a U.S.Congressman, not a member of the N.Y. State Legislature. That said, and at the risk of repeating myself, if you are unhappy with any legislation, proposed or existing, or supportive of, let your elected representatives know. Who knows, but what your thoughtful comments might make an impression, where it could count.

      • CBUJAN

        I write at least 2 to 3 letters a week to congressman and senators on many issues. I agree it would work if more people did the same.

        • Alan404

          Seems a crying shame that people whom one would think would be activated are not.

  • B White Eagle

    Maybe NY needs to secede with California!!!

  • dragon lady

    I like this New Yorker.

  • SoTxJoe

    And by definition, “controls” can only mean “infringement” no matter who institiutes them.

  • Terry Butts

    They will need to be very careful how the word this law as it could be mutilated by anti gun activists wanting to impose stricter gun laws nationwide we have seen politicians twist legislation to the point of doing the opposite of its intent in the past there is no reason to assume the anti gun politicians will not attempt to do the same with this.

    If it does what it actually states its intent is this is what has been needed for years as numerous states have not only made laws that practically ban all gun ownership but have harassed people visiting them from other states that have more constitutional gun laws.

  • Alan404

    While I did spend a couple of years in California, that was by the way, in the late 1960’s, you are correct. I’m originally from NYC, a place from which I departed permanently in 1967. Have also lived and worked in roughly 20 states, plus a couple of foreign countries. As to the antics of legislators, how is it that they obtain and retain elective office?

  • patricksperry

    Why only long guns..? In any case this will never make it all the way into law. But, we can dream!