Idaho Governor Otter (R)

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

BOISE, March 21, 2014 – On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed a bill, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws, by prohibiting state enforcement of any future federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition.

S1332 passed the house by a vote of 68-0 and the senate by a vote of 34-0. Alaska and Kansas have also passed similar laws.

Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America, cheered the governor’s action. “By signing this nullification bill into law, Idaho has joined an elite class of states that are telling the feds to ‘get lost’ — especially when it comes to unconstitutional gun control infringements”

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, will:

“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

Like Truth In Media on Facebook

The legislation continued:

any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state…

S1332 also includes an emergency provision meaning it takes effect immediately upon signature.

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director Mike Maharrey considered the legislation a good start. “This is an important first step for Idaho,” he said. “Getting this law passed will ensure that any new plans or executive orders that might be coming our way will not be enforced in Idaho. Then, once this method is established and shown to be effective, legislators can circle back and start doing the same for federal gun control already on the books. SB1332 is an important building block for protecting the 2nd Amendment in Idaho.”

Passage into law represents a giant step forward in protecting the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho. As the law now stands, state and local law enforcement will not cooperate with all future federal firearm laws.

The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. United States serves as the cornerstone.

Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said that the new Idaho law has opened Pandora’s box even wider.

“People are beginning to realize that this practice is completely constitutional and legal. In the near future, you will see a wave of states passing even broader legislation to fight the federal government on everything ranging from more traditionally liberal issues like hemp and marijuana, to more conservative issues like Obamacare.” Boldin continued, “Nullification isn’t a left vs. right issue. It destroys the fallacy of the left right paradigm and is the remedy for all unconstitutional laws.”

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Michael Lotfi

Michael Lotfi

CEO, Political Director at BrandFire Consulting LLC
Michael Lotfi is a Persian-American political analyst and adviser living in Nashville, Tennessee.Lotfi is the founder and CEO of BrandFire Consulting LLC. The firm specializes in public and private technology centered brand development, lead generation, data aggregation, online fundraising, social media, advertising, content generation, public relations, constituency management systems, print and more.Lotfi is also the executive state director for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center, a think-tank focused on restraining federal overreach.Lotfi graduated with top honors from Belmont University, a private Christian university located in Nashville, Tennessee.




"Like" Ben Swann on Facebook
  • Liberty or Death

    Unanimous votes in both the House and the Senate. Now those legislators are True Patriots!!

    • Cinncinatus

      Excellent job, Idaho! I hope to see Colorado follow your lead after the mid-term elections. Despert Ferro!

    • Balto2

      I hope ALL states see the value in this and do the same. Even states that are the most liberal will see their error and perhaps mend their ways and stand up for their own Constitutional liberty. Great job Idaho Patriots and thank you from a Michigan Patriot.

      • UtahTwisted

        Not sure how an unconstitutional act make you a constitutional patriot… seems contradictory to me…

        • twotone64

          Utah, They are not blocking the federal LEOs from coming and doing business as they see fit, they have passed legislation into law that says they are not going to “help/support” those federal LEOs with state/local LEO’s.

  • gwydion

    “As it stands now, state and local law enforcement will cooperate with all future firearms laws.” – Lotfi, I can’t tell what you mean here.

    • Michael Lotfi

      Typo. My mistake.

  • Tylek T’sarran

    Hang on a second here. If ‘ it takes effect immediately upon signature’, and ‘On Thursday, Idaho Governor Butch Otter (R) signed’ but ‘As it stands now, state and local law enforcement will cooperate with all future firearms laws.’ WTF did he actually do?

    • amommamust

      Will NOT cooperate.
      Very good news for me, although I trust Butch about as far as I can throw an elephant, or a RINO.

  • Jay Strickland

    Nullifying is not the best word use. Idaho is not blocking federal enforcement of the law they are simply declining to enforce any new federal law.

    • Michael Lotfi

      You sort of contradict yourself there… “Declining to enforce any new federal law” is blocking a federal law when the new state law reads that those who attempt to overcome the will be charged with civil penalty. The law does not nullify all existing laws, but the article never claimed it did.

      • Michael Lotfi

        This semi-interposition is certainly an element of nullification.

      • HumbleGod

        Under the text of this law, if a local LEO observes a violation of a “future” federal firearms law, does he still have probable cause to effect an arrest? Seems pretty clear that he does, unless there’s something about Idaho law that says that violations of federal law cannot serve as PC in such cases. In that light, isn’t “nullification” an inaccurate term?

        EDIT: Also, what about Jay S’s other point — Idaho will not be blocking federal enforcement of the law. (THAT would be a true attempt at nullification.) If federal agencies can still enforce federal law, and even local LEOs can arrest based on observed violations of federal law, it’s hard to consider this to be “nullification” in any realistic sense.

      • Jay Strickland

        As I read the bill the civil penalty is reserved for state employees. States are free to direct and punish their own employees. Now nullification would involve states arresting and finding federal employees in order to prevent them from discharging their federal duties in state.

    • Ward Damon Hubbard

      Clearly, it is a matter of sovereignty, and the ability of each state to govern the population of that state, the second amendment, is written direct, and is as short in length for a reason, it is not clumsy, it is meant to be understood only one way, by design, to survive over time, and it is a Vidal part of a individual’s freedom and sovereignty, and each state’s government ability to work effectively..

      • Jay Strickland

        About as much about sovereignty and nullification as legalization of pot in Colorado is. States do not have to enforce federal laws and are free to force the federal government to exhaust resources enforcing its laws. Nullification as a practical matter is about obstructing federal enforcement, this is a non enforcement provision.

  • pegger204

    My American neighbors, you can vote with your feet

  • Petercha0001

    Interesting. I have never seen the nation more polarized than I have under the current extremely liberal administration. It’s even worse than it was under Carter. I just hope it doesn’t evolve into violence of any kind. The current administration needs to be far less adamant about imposing extreme leftist policies on the American people – they need to be more flexible and willing to compromise.

    • BajaDreamer

      There very nearly was violence in Connecticut recently over their new draconian registration law(s) regarding semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines. Letters confiscations were already being sent out by the time the legislators figured out that 68% of the total law enforcement there also owned said weapons and most had also not registered them before the deadline and had no intention of doing so!

  • Eruaran

    Unconstitutional laws aren’t laws, they’re violations of the law.

  • Kenny_Login

    But… What if it were a law or amendment allowing any weapon and/or munition to b carried by any person at any time with absolutely NO restrictions whatsoever?

    • Michael Lotfi

      There already is- it’s called the Second Amendment.

      • UtahTwisted

        That’s not what the 2nd Amendment says

        • HumbleGod

          It’s also not what the Supreme Court has said in interpreting the Second Amendment.

          • Bryant

            The supreme court was right when they said it is an individual right yet in the same ruling contradicted themselves by saying it is not unconditional. Wtf does infringe mean then? Any responsible person should be able to own anything that the government owns as long as they aren’t committing a crime or hurting anyone. If someone has the capacity to safely own a middle then that’s their right.

          • Bryant

            Missile not middle

          • HumbleGod

            That is certainly one perspective. The problem is that 9 out of 9 sitting U.S. Supreme Court justices believe that your perspective is wrong.

          • Bryant

            How can I be wrong? I’m using common sense and facts to comprehend the meaning of the words used in the second amendment. The supreme court is a bunch of pompous elitests who believe their opinion is above my rights, and that’s a fact

    • BajaDreamer

      Do you have something against me driving my tank to work?
      Don’t be silly. This isn’t what this conversation is about.

  • Raylusk

    Police officers and other law enforcement personnel swear and oath to uphold the US Constitution amongst other laws. As long as the Federal law is Constitutional they are violating their oath if they don’t enforce that law. Idaho has put their law enforcement personnel in a no win situation.

    • James Hale

      What part of “shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand? By the Oxford dictionary the word “Infringe” has a very clear meaning: Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach upon. This means that any new law limiting/encroaching the right to bear arms that isn’t an official change to the Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Constitution cannot be trumped it has to be altered accordingly. There are procedures to do it but here lately the government does as it pleases regardless of the repurcussions…republicans and democrats alike.

      • Raylusk

        The body that the founders set up in the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, the US Supreme Court, has ruled that the right isn’t unconditional and is subject to appropriate regulations. I also see you and other gun fanatics forget about the first part of the Second Amendment that talks about a well REGULATED militia. The fact is that gun regulations can and often are Constitutional. Background checks have been upheld as Constitutional. Keeping guns out of the hands of felons has also been upheld as Constitutional. As has bans on automatic weapons. No right outlined in the Constitution is absolute. Those that claim it is ignore history.

        • Petercha0001

          Actually, the founders did not set up the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. The Court gave itself that power in the Marbury v. Madison decision. And I see that you talk about a well regulated militia. Do you approve of the Michigan Militia, then? It’s pretty well regulated.

          • Raylusk

            You don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the Constitution. Here is what it says about the judiciary. “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”. It’s clear that the Supreme Court was set up to interpret the Constitution.

            I don’t know anything about the Michigan Militia. But if it isn’t State sponsored it isn’t legal. All militias during our revolutionary war were sponsored by the States and that is the frame of reference under which that part of the Constitution was written. It’s what our founding fathers understood militias to be when the wrote the Constitution.

          • Michael Lotfi

            No Raylusk- you are wrong…. It’s called context. Feel free to read the Federalists Papers concerning the Judiciary.

          • Raylusk

            No it’s you who are wrong. I’m sorry you don’t like what the Constitution says but too bad.

          • top secret

            Nanana. You are a pathetic waste of freedom!

          • richardmilhous

            I don’t know about the rest of the States, but in Massachusetts the Lexington Militia, Woburn Militia, etc. were all town raised. Formed and commanded by local leaders, comprised of volunteers who were members of the town, who’s ONLY well regulation was being male of a certain age and you had to provide your own weapon and kit. The National Guard is not even close.

          • BajaDreamer

            It appears that you need to brush up on your legal history as well as general U.S. history.

          • Raylusk

            No it’s you morons that claim to be guardians of the Constitution that need to brush up.

          • BajaDreamer

            Ah yes, now the name calling starts. Typical of someone who has a weak and/or unsupported argument.
            As I’ve already said, the SCOTUS has already issued decisions stating plainly that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and that while they have said that the states have the power to regulate that right within reason, they do NOT have the right to negate it in any fashion concerning a citizen in good legal standing who is not otherwise prohibited form owning a firearm considered legal in that state.

            Sorry you don’t like that.

          • Raylusk

            And I’ve exposed your lie in other comments you made. The Supreme Court did not limit the regulation of guns to just the States.

          • BajaDreamer

            Once more with feeling……

            I never once anywhere in this entire conversation said that the SCOTUS limited regulation to just the states. You made that up out of whole cloth when you said I used the word “ONLY” which I never did in the original statement that got your panties in a wad.

          • Bryant

            Theyre not here to make up an opinion on how it should be interpreted. The scotus’ oath that they recite doesn’t say interpret the Constitution. It says uphold.

          • Raylusk

            I’ve clearly posted where the Constitution says the Supreme Court decides who is correct when a Constitutional challenge is made. That is interpreting it and is exactly why the founding fathers intended. You don’t like the way the Constitution works well to freaking bad.

          • Raylusk

            Read what I posted. They decide what the Constitution means when two parties disagree on the meaning. That is interpreting the Constitution just like I said.

        • BajaDreamer

          Two things here.

          1. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment IS an individual right that the state has NO right to take that away from a citizen who is legally entitled to own a firearm. A state may regulate it, but it cannot remove it from a citizen in good legal standing. Nor can the federal government.

          2. I love it when people like you bring up the militia part of the 2nd Amendment! Let me ask you; back when the Constitution was written, who was the militia? It was WE THE PEOPLE, that’s who! It was the farmers, shop keepers, and tradesmen of the land who made up the militia, and they were largely responsible for arming themselves!

          And you have the gall to talk about ignoring history? You don’t even seem to be that well informed about recent history!

          • Raylusk

            The militia wasn’t “We the People” with no regulation. In fact if you look at your history, at the time of the founding fathers there were laws in place that requires those that own guns to participate in regular training with their state recognized local militia. You gun nuts are the ones that don’t understand our history.

          • BajaDreamer

            ‘Scuse me there a sec. Exactly where did I say they had “no regulation”? The regulation they had was that they had officers who were in general selected from their own ranks, and that they received a minimum of training, and that’s about it. This was also a time of war here in this country that doesn’t currently exist. However that doesn’t change why the 2nd amendment was put in place! Read it……….

            >>”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”<<

            "being necessary to the security of a free state" was not speaking about individual states, it was speaking about the state of freedom! The other part that apparently bothers you is "shall not be infringed". I am ever so happy that you anti gun whack jobs constantly have your panties in a wad over that. 😉

          • Bryant

            That’s what I tell people all the time. The state isn’t the state government. State means the “status” of a person being free.

          • top secret

            A law should be passed that it’s illegal for raylusk to use the word “understand”! A cinder block has more common sense!

        • Bryant

          Look up the definition of “regulate.” It does not conflict the word infringe. Therefore the 1986 ban on civilian ownership on newly manufactured machine guns IS unconstitutional because it is a limit/ban. The purpose of the word regulate was meant for the PEOPLE to organize and train themselves. Our forefathers sacrificed everything, fought and died for the rights that we take for granted everyday and allow our current government to limit and take away. People now a days are like spoiled children who don’t understand the value of money and working hard. To this day people will die for freedom all over the world. Being completely free has its dangers and therefore requires that every person be very responsible for themselves and their actions. This might be scary to people like you but it is true freedom.

          • Raylusk

            The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with you so bans on automatic weapons is Constitutional. You can cry all you want but that is a fact.

          • Bryant

            Well the supreme court is wrong. But there are too many sheep like you, who don’t understand the value of freedom, and believe it’s up to the government to do whatever THEY think is necessary to keep us “safe.” Including limiting the rights and freedoms of all people no matter who they are. Currently, my cousin who is a former Navy SEAL and my brother who is a former Army ranger are not allowed to own the weapons that they were trained to proficiently use. That’s not right.

          • Raylusk

            It’s right if they have mental issues from their service that would make them a danger to society. By the way because I support the Constitution that makes me a sheep? Nope. But you not supporting the Constitution make you a traitor.

          • Bryant

            You seem like the one who has mental issues. It seems your alliance lies with the all powerful scouts and not the people. If we were doing as the constitution required every community would have a militia who decides where everyone ranks and who should be responsible for handling the firearms. Not everyone in the military carry or shoot a firearm at all time yet they’re trained on how to use it. The same should be with people in the community. If the others in the militia don’t believe you are capable of handling a firearm in a safe manner ( i.e. mental illness/disability, too young , not strong enough etc) then you will not be one who is allowed to posses it. But that’s not the government’s responsibility to decide let alone should they be setting out blanket laws that infringe upon EVERYONE’S rights

          • Raylusk

            The Federal Government hasn’t set up any gun laws that infringes on everyone’s rights. Since that is what we are talking about here is the federal government and gun rights you clearly just want to lie with your claims of infringement.

            You have also not demonstrated that the founding fathers didn’t expect these militias be well regulated not self regulated as you claim.

          • Bryant

            It says THE PEOPLE. The Bill of Rights are rights guaranteed to every individual citizen as long as they don’t do anything to limit the same rights,freedom or liberty of another individual citizen. No where in the 2A does it say the government is to regulate arms. There’s nothing I can do for you if you don’t understand that they HAVE infringed on my rights as a responsible human being. The fact that I can’t own the full auto vector because of a “law” IS infringement. Its nonsense. I can take a full auto m16 bolt and sear manufactured before 1986 and drop them in my AR 15 and have that be legal bit not purchase a new full auto m4. They’re exactly the same thing but the law is designed to limit it until there are no longer any more bolts. Its a slimy way of weeding away our right without immediately taking it away.

          • Raylusk

            Oh cry me a river. You can’t buy an automatic weapon and the law that prevents you from doing so is Constitutional. It must suck to be you that you put so much importance on owning an automatic weapon that you have to cry on an open forum about it. Well guess what I’m glad you can’t own one and if I could I would take away all your guns because you clearly are mentally unstable. All you have done here is lie, spin and cry. Try to claim that your clear words didn’t mean what they clearly mean. You are exactly one of the people that should be excluded from owning guns because you are unstable.

          • Bryant

            I already own a machine gun. Its a full auto m10 with a suppressor. Shoots 1200 rounds/minute. And I will own it until I die because I will never commit a crime with it. This is the way it should be. What do you have to say about that

          • BajaDreamer

            ‘Scuse me, but your ignorance is showing badly, and that you have lied and accused another of lying out of that very same ignorance.

            It is in fact perfectly legal to own a fully automatic firearm in most states. All one has to do is pay the one time $200 dollar tax stamp and go through all the red tape involved. The sale must be completed through a Class III federally licensed dealer. Then there are the incredible prices for the firearm itself. This is why most people don’t own one.
            Read and become enlightened dingleberry!

            http://thearmsguide.com/2349/full-auto-is-legal/

            http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/MediaPages/ArticleDetail.aspx?mediaid=159

          • Bryant

            But the 1934 NFA act and the 1986 ban have had a negative affect on gun rights and ownership. We cannot “legally” own class three firearms manufactured after May 1986. This makes it so the already limited supply is dwindling over time and everything left is unaffordable. This is a slimy way for the government to suppress us. Eventually they will have guns that shoot unlimited ammo at 1 million rounds per minute while we only have 19th century technology. How are we going to have an effective defense against tyranny 50 years from now if we allow the 1986 ban to stand? We have to get rid of it now.

          • BajaDreamer

            I’m well aware of the further restrictions place on ownership of fully automatic weapons. I was merely pointing out that we can in fact own them in most states to the all knowing @$$hat who said in his ignorance that we couldn’t own them at all.

            But I believe you’re engaging in pure fantasy with that “1 million rounds per minute” thing. I’d also ask you exactly how the wide variety of modern semi automatic rifles we can own now constitutes “19th century technology”?

          • Joshua

            Typical rightie. The body designed to uphold the constitution is wrong if they don’t like what they decide. Definitely in the right though if their judgment coincides with what you believe to be the truth. Absolutely pathetic.

          • Bryant

            I’m neither right nor left. I’m a libertarian. Look at what you typed. Uphold and “they decide” are in the same sentence. Those are contradicting phrases/words. It was already decided what the amendment meant when it was written in the 18th century. How can they decide on something that was already decided. And look up the definition of judgment. It co rains the word “opinion.” The bill of rights weren’t meant to be interpreted by the opinions of a governmental body. They are meant to remind said governmental bodies that We the People retain the power and we have the right to so whatever we please as long as it does not limit someone else.

          • judenjager

            You sound like a jew. Whine, whine, whine..

          • Raylusk

            You don’t just sound like a bigot you are one. Piss off.

          • judenjager

            Don’t you have a pillow to bite, bottomfeeder?

          • Petercha0001

            To be fair, not all Jews are whiners – just the liberal ones.

        • MJB

          “Well Regulated” at the time of the writing did not mean “regulated” as we know it today. “Well Regulated” meant “properly functioning”, NOT regulated as to restrict!

          • Raylusk

            Wrong. Laws at the time required regular training as actual militias and even stopped some people from owning guns. You don’t know what you are talking about but I find that is typical of you gun nuts. Owning a gun is so important to you that you will spin and twist everything to make your case. It won’t work with those of us that have read and understand history.

          • MJB

            Wrong? I don’t think so… I pulled this definition directly from the historical information of the time.

            It is YOU who are wrong!

            You have NO IDEA what I think in re: gun rights.

            But I am a student of the Constitution and Articles of Confederation, Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers and Non Federalist Papers.

            I have spent the past 30 years researching and learning what the original intent of the founders was AT THE TIME! Not the twisted current interpretation is…

            You have a current twisted definition!

            I am no “gun nut”… But I am a Constitutional Nut!

            Our founders intended that we had the means to defend ourselves from an oppressive and tyrannical government. THAT is the reason the 2nd Amendment was put in place…

          • BajaDreamer

            OK then, who was it back in those times that was stopped from owning guns and why? Please enlighten us with your omniscience!

          • top secret

            “Understand history”? ! Raylusk, you understand nothing! Also, you say automatic weapons are “banned”. Pass the background check, buy your tax stamp, register the weapon. Any American citizen can own one, thank God, or fools like you would have us live under tyranny!

        • James Hale

          When is enough enough?

          • Raylusk

            Irrational fears? When one child kills another because some idiot like you left their gun laying around. Or when an adult gun owner is showing off his gun and it accidentally fires killing some innocent. These aren’t irrational fears these are happening everyday. By the way your kind of talk dismissing the problem and calling us gun grabbers is exactly what is going to cause you to lose your guns. You gun nuts either quit with this crap of opposing every single regulation or at some point the over 70% of Americans that support these regulations will rise up and change the Constitution and eliminate your right to own guns. I don’t want that but if you gun nuts don’t realize there is a place in society for regulations of guns that is exactly what will happen.

          • James Hale

            We’re waiting.

    • Gwenn

      Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution (and, if applicable, the Constitution of their particular state), not to carry out the Acts passed by Congress. Those are two separate entities, and that is why the Department of Justice is the Law Enforcement arm of the Federal Government.
      The only ones violating an oath were they to NOT enforce FEDERAL law would be the agents of the FEDERAL government. State, County/Parish, and Municipal law enforcement voluntarily cooperate with the Federal agencies. However, they are at different levels of government; unless on Federal property, there is no requirement to ENFORCE Federal law by State, County/Parish, or Municipal law enforcement officers. Just because a law is constitutional does not mean that an agency has any authority to enforce it, which is why municipality law-enforcement agencies can enforce state law *within that municipality’s boundaries* but state law-enforcement agencies cannot enforce municipal ordinances–the authority to enforce laws relates to the authorizing agency.
      There is a reason each state has its own constitution and its own legislature; they are separate from the Federal Government. That is also why the Tenth Amendment was written…because the individual states were worried that a strong central government would begin to run rough-shod over state governments. It’s also why the Senators used to be elected by the state legislatures rather than the populace.
      BTW, the local law enforcement doesn’t actually charge someone with a federal crime…IF they already have someone who CAN be charged federally, they consult with the feds and THE FEDS decide whether or not to charge and try that person. The local agencies will sometimes, *in cooperation with the feds*, arrest someone on a warrant for a federal crime–a voluntary cooperation, and the locals are sometimes accompanied by an agent from the feds.

      • Raylusk

        No matter how you try an spin it, all law enforcement has sworn an oath to uphold the law and that means all the law. If they see a federal law being violated their oath says they should act.

        • Super soaker

          Wrong! Nice try come again

        • BajaDreamer

          That must be why 68% of law enforcement in Connecticut refused to register or turn in their semi automatic rifles as the asinine and overly restrictive law passed there said they were supposed to.
          Try and keep up sonny.

    • BajaDreamer

      As I just said to that Twisted Utah person above……

      “Since the SCOTUS has already decided that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states, this new Idaho law is in support of the Constitution, not the violation of it.

      Nice try though.”

      The fact of the matter is that with the most recent rulings by the SCOTUS regarding 2nd Amendment rights, and federal officer or official who confiscates a legally purchased and owned firearm is in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. What this new law does is to reinforce the 2nd Amendment in the state of Idaho. As the article states, other states have also done this, but not with unanimous support in their state legislatures. There will be other states following suit.

      • Raylusk

        You lied. The Supreme Court did not say that only States can make reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. So quit with the lies.

        • BajaDreamer

          OH geez, typical left wing whack job trying to twist words into something that was never said or even implied. Go read it again numb nuts! At NO time did I say that ONLY only States can make reasonable restrictions on gun ownership”.

          The direct quote as written is…..

          >>”Since the SCOTUS has already decided that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states, this new Idaho law is in support of the Constitution, not the violation of it.”<<

          This is exactly what I said and there has been no editing of it in either post I said it in. The word ONLY was never even used!

          Now who looks like the liar?

          • Raylusk

            Left it up to the States says that only the States can do it. Quit with your lying.

          • BajaDreamer

            “and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states…” is in no way, shape, or form exclusionary of the federal government dinggleberry.
            The ONLY one who has lied here at all is you. But you go right on ahead with that if it pleases you.

          • Joshua

            OH geeze, typical right wing whack job trying to twist words into something that was never said or even implied.

            Sadly, you people are a pathetic lot too. The fundamental issue here is that you morons posting believe you are right, end of discussion, and that everyone else is inferior and somehow less worthy. Not only is that attitude and view extraordinarily un-American, it is also dangerous.

          • BajaDreamer

            I wasn’t the one who was twisting words and lying about it. Raylusk clearly was. Lying to make a point automatically makes the other’s argument inferior. It’s sad that you can’t see that or at least won’t admit to it. That is truly “un-American”, and even more dangerous.

  • Ward Damon Hubbard

    As a Californian, It is refreshing to heard such good new, that there are politicians, such as yourself Governor, who by action and deed, believe it is a privilege to serve the public, and the oath that was taken, I am one of many who feel that the republic and constitutional authority, has been suspended by the patriot act, and this nation is on the edge, to hear and read, what you have done in your state Idaho, is very welcomed new, to myself and many American across the land, my own senator Feinstein, is doing her very best to end the republic as we have come to know it, currently she is petitioning the White House on firearms, and here, confiscation has started, so what you have done by action and deed, to keep this nation as the foundering fathers intended it to be, and for that Governor Butch Otter of Idaho, this American thanks you.

    • Raylusk

      There is no confiscation of guns in California. You gun nuts are pathetic liars.

      • the one
        • BajaDreamer

          Just ignore this little POS. He’s already proven himself to be a liar several times here while claiming that others are doing so. He’s got his panties twisted so tightly into his crack now that if he doesn’t fix it he’ll lose circulation and his @$$ will eventually fall off!

          • the one

            Sorry Baja,

            I am compelled to tell the truth and give facts instead of rumors and lies. The body of evidence for the real reasons for gun control is most obvious.

          • BajaDreamer

            I understand bud. I’m just finally learning not to waste as much time on people like him.

          • the one

            They are frustrating in the extreme but you must never let emotion take control of the higher brain functions. They excel at the emotional argument and fail when logic and fact are employed. Let them rant and rail at their own failures of conscience and intellect…

          • BajaDreamer

            True, however some of my most logical and cogent argument come when railing at them. 😉

        • qmack

          So you guys are in favor of felons and the mentally ill keeping their firearms?

          • the one

            When you cannot refute the evidence then you attack the messenger? This has always been a tactic of the communists.

        • Caribou “PAYCUT” Barbie™

          Wow! You are bitter!

          • the one

            Not bitter… Accurate. I do not go around telling lies like commie Teabaggers like you.

      • Ward Damon Hubbard

        @ Raylusk, Perhaps the fact that you are not an firearms enthusiast, speaks to the fact of you being mistaken about confiscation, in Los Angles County, a task force of ATF and County Sheriffs are confiscating firearms, not because the firearm is illegal, rather because the individuals, are not allowed to own firearms, for a variety of reasons, as well as offering a buy back program, and as for a “Gun Nut” it is clear, that you have never been in a situation where for one reason or another, that you feared for your safety, or the safety of your loved ones from something, or someone, and know what comfort it is to have a weapon, with a fully loaded clip, within reach, that has the capability of stopping that threat from doing you, or those you may love from harm, and in this great country, that is your choice. my choice however, is different, because I believe that, should the unthinkable happen, your choice would make you a victim, or worse, and what I mean by that, there are those, who have made the same choice as you, that would be turning in their friends and their family for a bowl of rice, while my choice, on the other hand, would at least, give me and mine, a fighting chance, the second amendment, is second for a reason, only those who want to chance this republic, change the constitutional authority, see firearms as a threat, to an enthusiast firearms are a tool, to provide and to protect, and in these times, our republic is quite frankly on the edge, the patriot act, has suspended our constitution, and civil rights, and like a snow ball turning into an avalanche, we as a nation now have, a suedo-police state, DHS, being stripped searched by the TSA in order to fly, NDAA, NSA in all it’s bastard forms, police brutality spreading across this land like a wildfire, I have been around badges and firearm all my like, and you can ask any retired cop, they will tell you like it is, most are worried at what they see, and concerned about the state of the union, and it’s future, and if all of this, is your definition of a gun nut, then thank you very much

        • Raylusk

          First I recently retired after serving as a firefighter for 31 years. During that time I faced several emergencies where those that shouldn’t has a gun threatened my life. This is in addition to all the emergencies I faced where I risk my life to help others. I am not a novice when it comes to facing danger.

          Second there are many states that don’t require background checks of people purchasing guns in certain venues. Congress tried to fix this last year by adopting a nationwide universal background check system but this was killed by a few “gun nut” politicians that were more afraid of losing an election then doing the right thing. They are cowards. Those that support these politicians I would label as gun nuts because they refuse to make sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. Would this have solved our gun problem? No but it was a start. We should also adopt laws that require all gun owners to go through regular training that teaches them how to properly handle and maintain their guns and more importantly how to properly secure them. Almost every week we hear about an accidental shooting involving either children that found a gun laying around that was left unsecured by a so called responsible gun owner. These gun owners should be prosecuted and laws should be passed to hold them accountable.

          I own both a rifle and a handgun. I bought my adult daughter a handgun. I’m not against owning guns, I’m against laws that stop us from keeping guns away from people that shouldn’t own them. This includes the mentally ill and criminals. A universal background check would help and so would holding those gun owners that don’t take the proper precautions to secure their guns so that they don’t fall into the wrong hands. Those that oppose this I label as gun nuts. I’m sorry if that offends you our other people but we need to address what is the reality of guns in this society and we can’t because even reasonable solutions are opposed by the gun nuts driven by the NRA. Even the NRA at one time supported universal background checks but has become so infected by gun nuts that they now have changed their position.

          As far as some of the government actions you describe I agree with you. I opposed the Patriot Act when it was enacted under Bush and I let my Congressional reps know. I also oppose Obama in expanding the role of the NSA.

          Gun nuts have not offered any viable solutions to our problems they just protest every reasonable action. This legislation in Idaho is an example of that. All they care about is the free flow of guns and never want to deal with the consequences of those guns.

          Finally why would anyone oppose law enforcement confiscating guns from those that legally aren’t allowed to own them? Law enforcement is supposed to enforce our laws and supposed to help keep predators and the mentally ill from possessing guns.

  • http://www.warddamon.com Michael J Posner

    So in the 1950s Alabama could pass a law banning enforcement of all federal laws requiring integration? Why didn’t the states try this in 1858? Because when these states became part of the Union they gave up some rights and I believe that these type laws will be found unconstitutional very easily.

    • Lilywhiteazz

      Pussy

      • http://www.warddamon.com Michael J Posner

        This is the best you got? Or you like cats? I guess facts are too hard for you to handle. P.S. I bet I own more guns than you do.

        • the one

          I like pussy…

    • Guest

      I’m not sure why you’re asking this question. Did you not read the article? It’s covered already in it. Don’t forget to check the links included in the article for further information, which you appear to want. SCOTUS has already weighed in on the matter, so as for finding it unconstitutional…they’ve already done quite the opposite in finding it constitutional, in court cases as recent as the 1990s.

      • UtahTwisted

        Read article 6 of your Constitution (supremacy clause). This Idaho law says the Idaho Constitution takes precedence over the U.S. Constitution – that, my friend it unconstitutional on its face.

        • BajaDreamer

          I have. Here it is explained.
          ———————————-

          Main article: Supremacy Clause

          Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.
          ———————————–

          Since the SCOTUS has already decided that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and has also left part of that interpretation of it and certain restrictions to that right up to the states, this new Idaho law is in support of the Constitution, not the violation of it.

          Nice try though.

          • Raylusk

            Actually the Supreme Court didn’t do exactly what you claimed. They didn’t say part of the interpretation and certain restrictions are up to the states. They said certain restrictions could be applied but they never said that only the States could provide those restrictions. Quit trying to lie to make your point.

          • BajaDreamer

            And this from a person who has already told a demonstrable bold faced lie about something I wrote here? Oh please……

            Once again: As I already pointed out to your lying @$$, at NO time did I EVER use the word ONLY or even imply it.

            Try actually comprehending the words you read without adding to them in your liberally biased fervor!

          • Raylusk

            Yes moron you said it by making the claim the Supreme Court left “certain restrictions up to the states” you are excluding the Federal Government from doing that. Now quit lying for once in your life.

          • BajaDreamer

            WOW!!!
            It is absolutely mind boggling how you can interpret “the Supreme Court left “certain restrictions up to the states” to mean that the federal government is somehow excluded from doing so! I have to suppose this delusional interpretation on you part was brought on by some sort of delusional dysfunction, likely the same one that makes you a compulsive liar. That seems to be a typically liberal affliction.

          • Raylusk

            Then you need to take what you wrote to an English professor. You clearly don’t know how to write with precision and should probably stop commenting until you take some writing classes.

          • BajaDreamer

            What I wrote was just fine and you seem to be the sole @$$hat making that interpretation of it.
            Might I suggest you take an adult remedial reading class? That is if you are old enough to qualify as an “adult”.

          • Raylusk

            And another lie by you. I’m not the only one to comment on you trying to spin out of what you clearly said. In fact you even commented to that person and then after make this comment saying I’m the only one. Liar.

            By the way why are you afraid to show your comment to an English professor? Because you know you are lying through your teeth. Piss off. I’m done taking to a liar that refuses to take responsibility.

          • BajaDreamer

            He wasn’t the one saying that I said “ONLY”. That was all you slick. That was your first lie.
            Then you said something about being all done or leaving. Was that lie number two or number three from you? I’m losing count.
            I also never said anywhere that I was afraid to show an English professor anything at all (Lie number 3 or 4 now?) I just don’t happen to have one handy.

    • Enough is Enough

      No, the Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government. The very statement “gave up some rights” should shake every American to their core. Unfortunately, too many are more than willing to give up their rights.

      • Raylusk

        Actually you are full of crap. The Constitution was written because the Articles of Confederation failed because they gave too much power to the States and no power to the Federal Government. The Constitution had to be written our we would now just be a collection of 50 separate countries. You people don’t understand history.

    • BajaDreamer

      For them to be found “unconstitutional” they have to be in violation of the constitution. It seems to me that this law actually protects a constitutional right. Can you say how you believe otherwise?

      • Raylusk

        Yeah I can say. The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to bear arms isn’t absolute. No matter how you gun nuts try to claim it is, it is not. Get over it.

        • BajaDreamer

          Get a clue.
          They have ruled that it is not absolute as far as what sort of weapons may be owned, such as those reasonably prohibited under the National Firearms Act of 1934. But their decision concerning Washington DC’s draconian gun laws clearly said that the individual has the right to own a firearm, and that it is absolute. Even the more liberal 9th circuit court recently overturned Klownifornika’s concealed carry law(s) as being too restrictive on and individual’s 2nd Amendment rights.
          Sorry you don’t like that very much

      • NFA1934

        “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

        How does someone wanting to purchase an unlimited amount of guns represent a well-regulated militia? Why not a rocket launcher? Why not a M1A1 Abrams tank? Why not a fully-automatic M-16? Why have background checks? Why prevent felons from going to a gun store and stocking up?

        Why are some people so willing to skip the “well-regulated militia” part and go straight to the “bear arms” part?

        • BajaDreamer

          Now you are just being silly and asinine in your comments. Those things are already restricted and have been for quite some time.
          Try making a reasonable argument wouldja please?

        • dusel1

          Why not?

        • dusel1

          When the government takes away all of your armament, whatever it is, you will be defenseless and unable to form a militia. Try defending your family and your property with a slingshot.

        • http://www.warddamon.com Michael J Posner

          Actually for 200 years this issue was debated, but in 2008 the Supreme Court stated that this means everyone has right not just militia, so its now settled law. They did say that reasonable regulation is permitted. Its like yelling fire in a crowded theater, it is impermissible speech despite the 1st Amendment

        • Ayatollyahso

          Actually there was a SCOTUS decision that weighed in on banning short barrelled(sawed off) shotguns Because: paraphrasing(” they served no recognized military purpose”).In that case Why not rocket launchers? See historically you banners are on the wrong side of this argument. push comes to shove the constitution is quite clear on the reasons for an armed citizenry ;no matter what “Feinstein and the Chicago funky bunch are smoking.

  • LadyRedMane

    Butch Otter was the first of the 50 governors to stand against obamacare as well. He definitely has the backbone many are lacking!

    • UtahTwisted

      They call stupid backbone now? Hum – who knew?

      • Enough is Enough

        No, we call stupid progressive now.

        • cmorplante

          Nah, I still call stupid, stupid.

    • Montgomery Scott

      @ LadyRedMane;
      You are INCORRECT.
      http://gov.idaho.gov/priorities/Exchange.html
      Ol’ BUTCH IS PANDERING, AGAIN.
      Ever since the EPA sued him for diverting water on his property, he’s been in the control of the Statists. Heck, it might go back even further (like his DUI)…

  • UtahTwisted

    Constitution be damned right? What an idiot.

    • Enough is Enough

      Apparently. It’s sad that you don’t support the Second Amendment to our Constitution. It’s also sad that you, and others like you, appear to support an all powerful federal government and powerless states.

      • Raylusk

        It’s sad that you don’t understand what the Constitution really says.

        • Joshua

          Right? Apparently these idiots feel slavery was fair and women not voting was right too. You know, things not included at the beginning.

          • LG

            Raylusk and Joshua: It’s not? What’s next, women will be allowed to drive cars? Haha, that’ll be the day… Oh no, please don’t be offended! Sorry, I forgot you actually think all “these idiots” think this way. It’ll be ok, you’re sensitive. My point is, there’s a certain person up in the office who thinks he can do away with whatever’s written on a piece of paper because he knows what’s good for us. The point of the Consitution is to keep people from doing this. Let the PEOPLE decide what’s right for themselves, hopefully it works out. What’s really scary is there’s people like both of you out there that back him up in doing it. How many more of you backwards hippies are out there? Your views make it seem to the common person (correct person, I might add) that you’re saying “Why not just make this country a dictatorial cult? If you protest, you die…any objections?” I hope I have sparked something worth getting angry about, I love pissing you people off… P.S. I own guns too. Damn, look at the fire in your eyes!

          • qmack

            Which president signed an assault weapons ban again? And which one signed a bill allowing people to once again carry in national forests?

      • UtahTwisted

        Have you read the Constitution. I support the whole thing not just on3e amendment. (Read the supremacy clause, article 6)

        • cmorplante

          “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance of it…….shall be the Supreme Law if the Land”. Do you know what “in pursuance of it” means? It means that only laws that pertain to the enumerated powers set forth are the supreme law of the land.

    • BajaDreamer

      The ONLY one who has said or acted in a “Constitution be damned” manner at all is the Obamessiah. Were it not for him and his minions such a law would not have been necessary.

      • Raylusk

        What exactly has the President done to take away any of your gun rights. Nothing idiot.

        • BajaDreamer

          Now see? There you go again, making up things I didn’t say and lying about it. Show me where I said he had acted in a “constitution be damned manner” concerning gun rights you imbecile. His unconstitutional actions in general on a variety of things have been well documented whether you like it or not.
          What your Obamessiah HAS done was to propose draconian gun laws and restrictions that even those in Congress with brown noses from fawning over him were loathe to condone or vote in favor of. Know why? Because they all wanted to keep their jobs, that’s why!

          • Raylusk

            We are talking about gun rights. Nothing else. If you can’t have your comment pertain to the subject then piss off. I’m sick and tired of you dancing and spinning. You are a complete moron.

          • BajaDreamer

            I really hate to point this out to you dingleberry, but what I just said there IS about gun rights. That should be plain enough for even a lying sack of $h!7 like you to understand. The lack of support from even the Democrats in the house and the senate for Obama’s proposed anti gun legislation is entirely on point.
            You want to get all pissy about things and leave? Go for it. I doubt anyone here will miss you much.

    • dusel1

      ……. shall not be infringed.”

      • Raylusk

        Well regulated.

        • the one

          Well regulated meant training not rules. Read the federalist papers and stop listening to HGI and the Brady bunch.

        • Ayatollyahso

          “Efficient,effective, or well equipped”; “smoothly functioning”take your pick: old(1700’s) mechanical clocks and steam engines had “REGULATORS” to make them smooth running and accurate .It has nothing to do with laws or “govt. regulations”. Sure as hell doesn’t mention”hunting” or sporting purposes!!!!!!!!
          I.e. the Schumerism:”how many rounds do you NEED to kill a deer?”

          GTFO!

        • Cal Brabandt

          I advise you to read the writings and speeches of the founders to learn the meaning of the terms “well regulated” and “militia.” They do not mean what the Brady bunch wants you to to think they mean. The militia was ubiquitous to the founders. It simply meant an armed people in the context of protecting freedom. “the one’s” reply to your post is correct, but “well regulated” can also be translated into modern language as “proficient” or “efficacious.” Of course the founders intentions also require training and competency in arms and a readily available or ubiquitous supply of arms. Furthermore, they intended that the arms must be comparable to the arms borne by a nation’s infantry and soldiers. (This is protected by the strongest verbiage and syntax possible in the “shall not be infringed” part).

          The founder’s plan to preserve and protect liberty is equally important today. If you don’t believe it is, you are suffering from a severe case of “normalcy bias.” 5000 years of civilization proves your notion to be wrong!

      • UtahTwisted

        If Congress makes an unconstitutional law it does not need to be followed. When a State INTENTIONALLY makes a unconstitutional law, they are just being idiots. (Read the supremacy clause Article VI)

        • Cliff Wells

          The relevant bit of the Supremacy clause is this:

          THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

          Note the words in emphasis.

          So unless the federal law is itself Constitutional (and no federal gun law is, since gun laws are not an enumerated power), then the Supremacy Clause does not apply. Any rights not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states and the people. End of story.

    • Cliff Wells

      The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

      Exactly which part of the Constitution grants the Federal government power to enact gun laws of any sort? The only possible one would be interstate commerce, but that cannot possibly limit ownership nor intrastate sales. That’s without even considering the Second Amendment.

      Further, the Tenth Amendment also allows for states to refuse to enact federal laws. This has been held up by several separate Supreme Court decisions.

      But hey, some guy on the internet, I’m sure your definition of “Constitutional” supercedes that of the Supreme Court or even the Constitution itself.

  • Nys Parkie

    LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE !!…..

  • Tim

    This isn’t nullification. The bill doesn’t say that federal gun laws don’t apply in Idaho. It says that state and local officials in Idaho can’t enforce federal gun laws. But there is no challenge to the federal government’s authorty to enforce the laws through its own agencies.

    • Cal Brabandt

      The Tenth Amendment Center defines nullification as follows:

      “Nullification:
      Any act or set of acts which renders a law null, void or just unenforceable.”

      It considers federal law to be unenforceable without cooperation from state and local law enforcement agencies. I believe the assertion is true.

      http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/#nullification

  • Tim

    I think we need more name calling and ‘experts’ interpreting the law…

  • Shami-Amourae

    I’m proud to be an Idahoan!

  • Tootrue4you

    And the little libbies start throwing a tantrum!

    • UtahTwisted

      I’m not (necessarily) a liberal – but as a proud American patriot, combat veteran, I am appalled that so many think this UNCONSTITUTIOANL law is a good thing. I fought for my Country – not a bunch of nuts who don’t even know what their founding documents say.

      • cmorplante

        Elaborate, please. Unconstitutional? Why. Not a good thing? Why. What do our founding documents say regarding this?

        • UtahTwisted

          The supremacy clause (article 6). States cannot pass a law that says they supersede the federal government – that is unconstitutional.

      • Cliff Wells

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Forced_participation_or_commandeering

        It is a violation of the Constitution for the Federal Government to force a state to enact a Federal law. They can try to entice them to assist, but they cannot compel them.

        Given that the article quoted another Supreme Court decision stating specifically that nullification is Constitutional, I can only presume that you received brain-damage while serving your country. I’m sorry to hear that. Maybe next time, before you loudly misspell the word “constitutional”, you’ll try reading it first. Or hell, just learn to use Google.

        • UtahTwisted

          You are mixing up ideas. The federal government cannot force a state to comply with a law UNLESS there is a constitutional basis for it, such as the commerce clause or necessary and proper clause, or the 14th Amendment. Please see Missouri v. Holland for example. You are confusing ideas such as receipt of highway funds like South Dakota v. Dole.

          I know what I’m talking about. Sorry, but “nullification” is not – and never was constitutional. Please proved a case that illustrates that point. Good luck

          • Cliff Wells

            http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

            The crux here is constitutional. If the state’s position is that Federal gun laws (and executive orders) are unconstitional, then nullification is valid.

            As far as the whether nullification is constitutional, tell it to Thomas Jefferson.

      • Philip Robert

        Combat Veteran? What Unit did you serve in. What engagements?

        • UtahTwisted

          Iraq & Afghanistan x 2 – but so what. My being right – which I am – is not based on my service (30 years btw, 25 active duty, CSM)

      • Roy Farber

        I think you are talking about the laws that the Federal Government are trying to perpetrate on the American people. I would certainly hope that you aren’t talking about this awesome “nullification” law that is taking effect in Idaho.

      • bobooow

        The founding Documents as well as the founding fathers themselves. Spelled out pretty clearly that the federal government is an entity created to NOT have any form of absolute authority even in an optimal situation were the federal government wasn’t as corrupt and decayed, and exhibiting a blatant disregard for our constitution and the rights of the states and the rights of the people. Such as our own is. No it was created to govern the states. And the states are to govern the people. And when need be to put the federal government in check. The Fed is Not to exhirt supreme and final say over anybody and everthing in the nation. Especially in a situation where they are outright violating the constitution. Such as passing an erroneous federal firearm legislation. Most likely in an unconstitutional manner. And violating the constitution yet again by selectively overturning a states right to nullify such an order. So please. Tell me how it is the state that is the bad guy in this situation?

        • Rog

          Jeeesh, the level of ignorance regarding our form of government here is appalling. No, the federal government was NOT created to “govern the states.” Where on earth did you hear that one? It was created by the states to handle external matters, issues pertaining to the states relationships with foriegn countries and trade therewith. A unified front, so to speak. Can the created be superior to the created? Certainly not.

          If you will kindly have a look at Art.1 sec. 8 of the organic constitution you will see a list of enumerated powers. These are the specific powers granted to the general government BY the states. Stuff like establish uniform naturalization standards, uniform weights and measures, postal roads and establish a navy etc. You will notice federal taxing authority is spelled out here. The federal government has the power to impose duties, imposts and excise taxes. Each of these taxes are external in nature. Duties and imposts have to do with foreign trade and excises are a tax on the exercise a federal privilege, such as foreign company doing business within the several states. Direct taxation, a tax on the states, is discussed elsewhere.

          You will see nothing there concerning the regulation of firearms, among other powers not granted, and even if there were such a clause that power would be external in nature, that is, concerning importation of such. An FFL is a license to engage in foreign trade. Americans have been tricked into believing the federal government has ANY authority to restrict in any way the ownership, sale or transfer of firearms within the several states party to the constitution. This law in Idaho is simply a reiteration, by the states, of the powers reserved to the states and NOT granted to the federal government.

          Of course the federal courts will try to defend the usurpation of powers not granted to the federal government by declaring nullification void. That is an invalid claim and the states are just now refuting that claim. Good for them.

          • UtahTwisted

            NO NO NO! The States did NOT “create” the Federal Government! Read the first three words – they are even written in super large script – they mean something. The PEOPLE created the Federal Government.

        • UtahTwisted

          First of all, what you’ve written is incredibly difficult to understand, is English your second language?

          Second, you are VERY mistaken on your basic knowledge of the Constitution, our founding, and the history from that founding.

          What are the first three words of the Constitution?

          Please read article 6 of the Constitution for the order of supremacy.

          States CANNOT nullify anything. Please see any number of Supreme Court decisions, may I suggest McClough v. Maryland or Missouri v. Holland

  • Edward Aspinall

    I LOVE IDAHO!!!!

  • railroadjim

    I live in Oregon but I’m moving back to Idaho. Yipeeeee!

  • Bryant

    400 hundred years ago a group of God fearing people were ooressed by their government for their harmless beliefs. These people sacrificed everything and left The security of their home not knowing where they would get their next meal let alone how they would advance their stays in life. They mad a a long and almost impossibly dangerous journey across the Atlantic ocean to land in a wilderness full of unknown dangers. From scratch, the built their own communities and eventually cities. Once they saw these peoples’ resolve and success the old government who initially forced them from their homes decided to step in and take advantage of their hard work and sacrifice. Once this government started coming into their homes, eating their food and most likely sexually assaulting their daughters, the People took it personal. They weren’t going to leave this time. They were going to fight and make a stand. The smartest and brightest of them drafted a declaration of independence and after winning the war and losing many of their family members they decided to write up a Bill of Rights to help their decendents remember and understand what frconfiscationis and what it takes to protect it. These rights were not suggestions are laws that were up for debate, change or scrutiny. They were unalienable freedoms guaranteed by God, creator of everythi g, to every responsible human being. Our forefathers knew and understood that people would get complacent and/or not understand how and why it was their responsibility to protect their own freedom so that’s why they put the 2nd amendment in this Bill of Rights. They also knew that in order to take and keep any rights away from people, they had to first take away what the people use to protect their rights. Arms. That why its the only right that specifically says it shall not be limited or encroached upon. Those who believe that the government should make laws for registration, limitation or confiscation of any type of weapon are the ones who need to be reminded of what happens when you hand over control of your own safety to someone or something else.

    • Marky Michaels

      The people of the Ukraine would be fighting their own battle right now had they not been disarmed. OLiar made a deal a long time ago.
      http://youtu.be/XsFR8DbSRQE

  • man50

    The People of Connecticut will be holding their Second Annual Connecticut Gun Rights Rally on Saturday April 5th, 2014 at the State Capitol in Hartford commencing at noon. The event is posted on Facebook as the “Connecticut Gun Rights Rally”. This has turned into a national event withe people from many states attending. Please show your support by clicking on the “Going” button even if you can’t attend.

    • Leslie James

      So let me get this straight. Click on the Going button even if we’re not? And more importantly people from other states will be there?! I’m fairly certain our State Police will hear about this.

  • Charles

    If I ever get to retire, I have always thought Boise environs would be a good place to do it. An Oregonian, now Missourian, considering being an Idahoan. I have family in that area and have been in Idaho many times. I like it there.

  • keith

    I wish UTAH would do this but not with the RINO we got.

  • Cal Brabandt

    It’s a start, but the meaning of the carefully selected word, “infringed” denotes the strongest possible protection for the right. ANYTHING is an infringement! So when will we see state nullification for all the past unconstitutional firearms laws (ie., all of them)?

  • 4570

    Somewhere, Vicky and Sammy Weaver are smiling.

  • bruceapilot

    I wanna move to Driggs.

  • docreid

    Come on Texas…..it’s time to get with the program……

    • Jason Schafer

      Can’t even open carry in Texas A handgun.

      • SpudFarmer

        It’s harder in Boise than you’d think.

    • Puresnow

      Natural News
      5-12-2013
      “In a vote of 100-47, the Texas House recently approved a bill aimed at stopping new federal laws and regulations concerning firearms within the state’s boundaries. The legislation, HB 1076, introduced by Rep. Steve Toth, a Republican, would require that Texas refuse to enforce any new gun control laws or regulations enacted after Jan. 1, 2013:
      In part, HB 1076 reads:
      An entity described by Subsection (a) may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity enforces, or by consistent action allows the enforcement of, a federal statute, order, rule or regulation enacted on or after January 1, 2013 that purports to regulate a firearm, firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction or other regulation, such as capacity or size limitation, a registration requirement or a background check, that does not exist under the laws of this state.”

  • Stagester

    So proud of my new home state of Idaho! Yeah Feds now you know where I live come get me!

  • Do You Even Law?

    You should really learn the difference between uncooperative federalism (what this is) and nullification (what this is not).

  • Bryant

    Typing on my phone was a major fail so I redid
    it on my computer.

    400 hundred years ago, a group of God
    fearing people were oppressed by their government for their harmless beliefs.
    These people sacrificed everything and left the security of their homes not
    knowing where they would get their next meal let alone how they would advance
    their status in life. They set out on a long and almost impossibly dangerous
    journey across the Atlantic Ocean to land in a wilderness full of unknown
    dangers. From scratch, they built their own communities and eventually
    functioning cities. Once they saw these peoples’ resolve and success the old
    government, who initially forced them from their homes, decided to step in and
    take advantage of their hard work and sacrifice. Once this government started
    coming into their homes, eating their food and most likely sexually assaulting
    their daughters, the People took it personal. They weren’t going to leave this
    time. They were going to fight and make a stand. The smartest and brightest of
    them drafted a declaration of independence and after winning the war and losing
    many of their family members they decided to write up a Bill of Rights to help
    their descendants remember and understand what freedom is and what it takes to
    protect it. These rights were NOT suggestions or laws that were up for debate,
    change or scrutiny. They were clearly stated unalienable freedoms guaranteed by
    God, the creator of everything, to every responsible human being. Our
    forefathers knew and understood that people would get complacent and/or not
    understand how and why it was their responsibility to protect their own freedom.
    Just because we have electronic technology today does not mean that they were
    not as intelligent as we are today. I believe they were sharper in many ways.
    They knew we would have the weapon technology we have today just like we know
    there will be ray guns with unlimited ammo in the future. So they put the 2nd
    amendment in this Bill of Rights and made sure, above all the other rights, to
    clearly state that it should not be limited or encroached upon by anyone. Well
    regulated meant organized, ready and responsible. Those who believe that the
    government should make laws for registration, limitation or confiscation of any
    type of weapon are the ones who need to be reminded of what happens when you hand
    over control of your own safety to someone or something else.

  • watchdogmom

    You shine Idaho!!! The Constitution is “thee Sacred Law of the Land” and must be upheld.

  • IDAHO FOR LIBERTY

    Russ Fultcher for Idaho Govener he won’t wait tell the last minute to sign bills

  • Captiosus

    The minute this is challenged in Federal court, it will be overturned. The amount of armchair Constitutional scholars in this discussion give me a chuckle. Those of us who have spent years studying the American Political system and Federal case law have a far better understanding of what the 10th Amendment does and does not provide.

    Need proof? Southern States tried this exact same strategy in the 1950s to prevent integration. Cooper v. Aaron (1958). Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board (1960). Two cases in which SCOTUS outright ruled that states do not have the authority to nullify federal law. Too recent for you? Let’s go back to 1809, when we were still a fledgling Republic: United States v. Peters (1809). Guess what SCOTUS ruled in that case? Oh yeah, that Pennsylvania could not nullify Federal court decisions.

    I know it’s a lot to ask, but instead of just rambling on about things you THINK you know about, do your research. Nullification has been continually struck down from 1809 to present. Legal precedent does not support this recent attempt to do it again. Enjoy your hollow victory!

    • Michael Lotfi

      Perhaps while you’re trading case law you’ll want to read Printz v. US, NFIB v. Sebelius, Prigg v. Pennsylvania and NY v. US, which all provide the legal framework for this legislation. Shallow “repudiation” does little for your case. Then again- you could always ask New York Times best selling authors and legal experts Judge Napolitano, Dr. K. Gutzman, or Thomas E. Woods.

    • Puresnow

      Idaho, Kansas and Alaska are mentioned in the article.
      However, there are more:

      Missouri Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Control
      (also Tennessee, Wyoming, and more)

      Georgia Senate votes to nullify common core
      (also Kentucky, Alabama, Arizona, and more)

      States opting out of PPACA with State Laws:
      AL, AZ, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MT, MO, NH, NC,
      ND, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY

      States nullifying Federal marijuana laws:
      CO, MN, WA, and more

      Federal law only trumps State Law if it is enforceable.

      “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
      – Abraham Lincoln

      …and Rand Paul.

    • lberns

      As long as you continue to think like a statist, this is true. Give up the superstitious belief that some people have the legitimate right and authority to rule you, and SCOTUS is revealed for what it really is: a bunch of black dress wearing thugs.

    • Tony Jordan

      I simply don’t find your argument persuasive.

    • David Wallace

      It’s a stacked deck and has been for a long time. The 2nd Amendment was incorrectly interpreted in favor of individual gun control for years by these same “scholors” only because they twisted the words, manipulated word definitions, and had the power to rule as they wanted. Those days are coming to an end and the people are speaking up. Laws don’t last long when the people don’t support them.

      • mike d

        The bill of rights are civil rights guaranteed by the creator and the context of the 2nd Amendment . The military is covered under article 3.

    • LeslieFish

      The difference here is that these laws are also defending the federal constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment. Any federal court would have to perform some serious legal back-bends to abolish laws which defend the constitution.

      When the SCOTUS knocked down Arizona’s SB 1070, its reasoning allowed for the state to *refuse to enforce any federal law* on the grounds that this would be taking to itself the duties of the federal government. So far nobody has taken this on, but we do have legal medical marijuana in this state, so it’s likely to come up any time the federals raid a local marijuana dispensary.

  • usmcmailman

    I may move to Idaho !

  • FACTS

    Federal Law is ONLY suppose to deal with commerce between the states and foreign governments. Federal Laws are NOT suppose to “reverse or challenge” Constitutional Law which ARE THE RULES of LAW unless a Constitutional Convention is established to deal with Constitutional Law challenges. Passing illegal laws that contradict Constitutional Law only waste time and money in the courts.

    Why is the US Constitution NOT a required subject in our schools? It’s because, an educated and knowing Public would challenge ALL FEDERAL LAWS that exceeded their scope and definition as laid out in the US Constitution. Ignorance and confusion is what the Feds depend on to pass bogus laws that contradict the citizen’s Rights & Freedoms! A well-armed Public that was schooled in the Constitution would never allow the existence of contradictory Federal Laws!

    • mike d

      Obama doesn’t follow that intrusive Constitution.

  • Jarhead0369

    “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
    – Abraham Lincoln

    Interesting that the greatest tyrant in American history would be quoted here. How far will the Feds be willing to go to enforce this sort of thing, and how far will the States and their citizens be willing to go when armed US Marshals, BATFE, IRS, EPA and others start busting their balls?

  • Guest

    Folks, please do some reading…this Idaho PR stunt will not stand long…states have done this repeatedly in the past and failed.
    “Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.”
    I rest my case.

    • James

      Its called the United States of America, each and every state makes up the country and in no way does the federal government control the States individual rights. Each state has the ability to take a stand against government tyranny.

      • Puresnow

        If it comes to it there is always the Sheriff as the last bastion of freedom and checks and balances, A Sheriff being the supreme authority in a county (higher than the President or Federal government) and being charged with the protection of the people.

    • David Wallace

      Only when acting within their lawful authority. The Fed has been overstepping it’s authority claiming everything under Interstate Commerce which is total BS. Probably 80% of the Fed’s claimed authority is not backed by the enumerated powers in the Constitution,

      • Charles Forry

        And then there is Lerner and Holder. BOTH are guilty in the IRS scandal. Talk about overstepping… Throw them both in prison for contempt and see how fast they start squealing.

    • nctenther

      troll or fool? Or both?

    • Puresnow

      The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or the people.

    • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

      How about you rest your idiotic mind as well. The Supremacy clause has NOTHING to do with unconstitutional actions. WOW, how stupid you are and how stupid we’ve become as a people. You are grossly ignorant of the laws and Constitutions. Who is greater… the created or the creator? You are standing on your idiocy that the created is greater than those who created the government. You better get educated… or be ready to be treated as a domestic terrorist. Please go back and drink more of your Obama treasonous, domestic terrorist KoolAid.

  • rudy

    it’s a stunt because a $1000 penalty is nothing. it should be enforced by a year or so in jail. that might mean something

  • Mick

    Idaho and most of the other intermountain states as well as a handful of southern and eastern states will ‘appear’ to position themselves against the ever encroaching cancer that is the federal government. However, this is all a ruse and is designed to give false hope and further divide this nation. You will see states attempt to secede and civil war will follow. This is all by design – you really think the PTB haven’t thought all this through? Everything that happens is for their benefit. The ones who will suffer the greatest will be the peoples of these states through famine and total suppression. The politicians will slip away as the people are lead to their slaughter. The game is being played at a much higher level.

    • nctenther

      Yeah right, because states are easier to control. No, they’d much rather have control all in one place…then there’s no need for fighting as all will comply.

    • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

      Wrong… do you really think that 150 million Americans well armed will allow this? The States have the simple power to put the Federal Government OUT of our states. It is happening all across this republic. The PTB are a bunch of weak, pathetic power hungry, idiots that are living in their ivory tower of stupidity. Come on PTB… bring it on, or shut the hell up. We have YOU and your “blood” in our sites, and YOU and your evil families are targeted because you have made yourselves such.

    • Richard StJohn

      The fact that they control our currency doesn’t mean they control us. Granted the Constitution was usurped in 1913 by the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. But the part they will never understand about the average American is the fierce spirit of independence we all carry with us. The biggest obstacle to one world government is the population of America. Free men will stand. If we have to we will fight. We will pass on to our children their birthright. It’s really that simple.

  • DougO

    I am from Idaho. I am a Veteran. I don’t claim to know all the laws. That is why we hire law enforcement, lawyers, etc. I will state, However, that I am keeping my Individual firearms and accessories, etc. Here in Idaho we have well regulated militias with the support of local law enforcement. If anyone thinks federal law out trumps Idaho’s Constitution and my Individual God given right of self protection, they are sadly mistaking. Violate my family, person, property and find out what law trumps what. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission. That’s why we seat a Jury of 12. DougO

    • Polar Vortex

      You racist bytch POS. We’ll get your guns and put your family in camps. Thanks for the post. We know who you are and where you are.

      • judenjager

        ook ook eek eek…. All you n*i66ers are good for is making noise. Low IQ is not conducive to victory. We will wipe you out .

        • Reichskanzler

          Love the name judenjager (Jew hunter) haha yes.

      • mike d

        “We” is everyone in your housing project? You ain’t going anywhere except to KFC.

      • Flypaper

        Dude, if you don’t like the Constitutional Amendments then go live somewhere else. Honestly, it wouldn’t offend the rest of us. (Troll or not)

      • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

        How about you go back to Africa where you ancestors traded your ancestors in for money… and now you suck money out of the system. You know where we are??? WONDERFUL. Please come and visit… we are well prepared with all you deserve to get!!!

    • Puresnow

      Idaho, Kansas and Alaska are mentioned in the article.
      However, there are more:

      Missouri Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Control
      (also Tennessee, Wyoming, and more)

      Georgia Senate votes to nullify common core
      (also Kentucky, Alabama, Arizona, and more)

      States opting out of PPACA with State Laws:
      AL, AZ, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, LA, MT, MO, NH, NC,
      ND, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WY

      States nullifying Federal marijuana laws:
      CO, MN, WA, and more

      Federal law only trumps State Law if it is enforceable.

      “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
      – Abraham Lincoln

      …and Rand Paul.

  • Polar Vortex

    I am a BLACK FEDERAL EMPLOYEE…..

    All you RACIST WHITE POS’s. The federal government is buying MILLIONS of rounds of ammo. We are coming for you, your families, and your guns.

    Camps are finished, cheap caskets have been ordered. WE WILL COME FOR YOU.

    • guest

      Come on, you POS gov’t nipple sucking trash. We have been buying up ammo as well and you will fit in the caskets just as well.

    • Mario Scarabuchi

      come and get me baboon man

    • mike d

      The only reason you would knock down a persons door would be if they had a bucket of Kentucky fried chicken and fresh watermelon on the kitchen table.

    • bobfairlane

      ROFL Troll

      • Polar Vortex

        LOL. Yeah, don’t take much to get them riled up.

    • Defiant

      LOL! Troll.

      • Polar Vortex

        LOL. just imagine if I said I got a white woman.

    • John Mac

      Well as Sargent York said,”If they be a catchin me some of them are gonna be mighty sorry.”

    • chris

      Come to Idaho then. 😉

    • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

      GREAT. And… your “federal” families are known because of idiots like YOU who we’ve been tracking for years… and you can come after us, but guess what happens because we know where YOU live?????????

    • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0ZjLeS_EDPvr5sryM71iRQ nunya fknbsness

      you will die , your families will die…

      make no mistake.

      • HarpandPopShow

        hahahhahaha! weak

    • Richard StJohn

      More likely your a sexually frustrated 13 year old with his first computer. DHS ordered 1.6 billion rounds of hollow points. Any fed would know that. The cheap caskets are actually coffin liners used to keep the ground from collapsing as the coffin deteriorates..Stop believing everything you see on TV even if Jesse Ventura is there to show it to you. BTW Polar Vortex is a really stupid name as the poles are capped with ice.

      • Polar Vortex

        You are of no real value to the state and you are a threat to a globally integrated economy and new socioeconomic fabric. The state is forever and you are a resources with diminishing value.

        • Doc Holliday

          Ignorance is the anethstetic for arrogance!

    • Kenny

      I’m a black retired Army veteran and Department of Defense/Department of Army federal employee. The federal government is not coming for anyone. Their is no FEMA camps. You’ve lost your damn mind!

      • Polar Vortex

        ain’t you got a lawn to stand on?

  • Joseph

    Anti-comandeering is not nullification.

  • CRASH

    polar vortex,we will be waiting for you :)

    • Polar Vortex

      You will be in a camp, very soon.

  • NYSAFEACT

    Why is the fact that you are a black federal employee even pertinent info? No body cares who you are or where you work Polar!!! Fact Is you are the minority in more ways than one! Majority of the country still believes that private citizens owning firearms is patriotic and NECESSARY! You sir are the “poster boy” for why millions of people in this great country own such items. I personally know hundreds of individuals, of many races and backgrounds, to include women, who own private firearms. Most of which are resourceful enough to manufacture their own ammunition…..and do! So just think about that for a while!!! And be careful what you wish for!!! We shall not be infringed!

    • chestnuthill

      Relax, he was trolling.

    • Polar Vortex

      Do you think yourself. We have people EVERYWHERE…..THIS IS NOT A GAME and I am NOT A TROLL. You can surrender your guns and comply with the new order or we will remove them from your COLD DEAD HANDS. Freedom is a CURSE. The government will give you guidance and direction. Families are irrelevant. We are all comrades. Religion WILL BE DESTROYED.

  • JSOC-John

    Polar Vortex is probably some fat slob that lives in his moms basement and has never touched any kind of firearm bigger than a bb gun. Even that makes him nervous. The ignorance shows through in his postings. He probably collects welfare which is why he is hung on the fed’s tit.

    • Polar Vortex

      Sir, I am a VETERAN AND A PATRIOT. I have seen the evil of giving your kind too much freedom. You are a danger to the new order. Google FEMA CAMPS……your new home.

      • james

        You are not a patriot.

      • Doc Holliday

        Those camps will be your home as well…you just don’t see it yet.

  • James Lucas

    this polar vortex no fed but he taiks just like a loony- toon left wing nut, he is a role player.

    • Polar Vortex

      FEMA camps are already waiting for occupants. your kind must be eradicated.

  • T.D Loves Guns

    Yay! More Freedom please.

  • Charles Forry

    Awesome…. Here’s an idea… Make the FED’s buy a PERMIT to even be IN THE STATE. That way you know why they are there ( DEA, FBI, CIA, ATF, NSA)and what they are doing.

  • david

    The drone state says yes …lol…. you can have your gun…he haw heee haww

    • Prosta Chudo

      American state. we keep our guns to shoot your unlawful, mafia-style, federal agents when they try to force things like obamacare on us. Hard to say he haw with a barrel in your mouth. The second amendment is not for hunting. unless it’s hunting tyrannical agents of an unconstitutional government. let freedom ring like a gun blast going off inches from your ear

      • david

        I think you completely missed my point there bud. I really makes alot of sense to give the people their guns rights and have them build drones to bomb them with at the same time. And on another thought their mouth, some folks folks don’t take threats lightly.

        • Prosta Chudo

          :) Youtube 3d printing drones and the tech in that. cant reach as high as them yet, but this is doable and done right now also see FPSRussia on youtube he has a video of something similar to what can be done for under $300

        • Prosta Chudo

          I guarantee you I will shoot any person who attempts to disarm my country.

  • Gregory Alan of Johnson

    Excellent! It has a penalty assessable to those that try and force State/Local muni-corp agents to capitulate to the federal “order”.

  • cooperbry

    Excellent!

  • http://thecountyguard.org/ countyguard

    Who will run with this? Who will do THIS at their LOCAL, county or city level? get with it people… create YOUR area a Liberty Zone, and QUIT the idiocy of corrupt governments… libertyzone.org

    • kinjirurm

      LOL, all bark, no bite.

  • kinjirurm

    Great! A meaningless piece of law was passed! All cheer your tax dollars being wasted!

    • Glen Herbert

      I wish we had more people that would say that about the President.

    • wmkabrich

      A meaningless piece of law was passed!

      We are not talking about DemocratCare here we are talking about our rights.

  • http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0ZjLeS_EDPvr5sryM71iRQ nunya fknbsness

    research the act of 1871…

    the usa is a corporation.

    • Polar Vortex

      and you are a DEPRECIABLE ASSET with DIMINISHING VALUE TO THE STATE. why should you be allowed to exist?

    • http://www.americanusconstitution.com/ Don Thayer

      The Act doesn’t SAY that the US is a corporation, and Congress can’t nullify the Constitution, only “we the people” can – through the Article 5 process.

  • Polar Vortex

    FEMA camps are ready for you GUN NUTS. United Nations forces from Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe are already in route. Cling to your guns and bible if you want to. Your day of judgement is at hand. You have made a choice…….YOUR COLD DEAD HANDS……YEP.

    • Richard Einstein

      There will be a gun behind every blade of grass to mow them down and treasonous scumbags such as yourself will also be easy targets. Although you are not worth the price of a bullet, the damage you can cause is extensive so expect some hot lead to come your way in the near future.

      • Ogrrre

        And those blue helmets make dandy targets.

        • Polar Vortex

          A shell full of mustard gas will burn you and your grass.

    • Doc Holliday

      Those same camps are ready for you as well you just don’t know it…yet!

      • Calvinius

        Those camps don’t exist, dumbfuck.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          How is sleeping the American Dream working out for you? Do you think you’ll wake up to the American Reality someday, that all the propaganda you’ve been fed by Big Brother is wrong?

    • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

      You’re either playing the troll or you are one of the most phenomenally idiotic persons ever to post on a political thread, not to mention outright treasonous.

      • Polar Vortex

        I am no troll. I long to destroy your kind. You are a threat to the future of humanity. You’re disposable and expendable.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          You’ve got it backwards, but that’s not surprising at all considering that you’ve been propaganda programmed to be a bootlicking government apologist.

  • Kenny

    Since Americans elected an African American President, states with Republican legislatures and governors refuse to follow the law of the land (Constitution) they claim to love more than any being who is not a hardline conservative, and argue vehemently for nullifying the Constitution because they, like petulant children, cannot tolerate following rules. According to a rule in the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the land, but an inordinate number of Republican-controlled states contend that they, not the High Court, decide constitutionality of law. According to Republican states nullifying federal gun laws, they are simply adhering to the National Rifle Association as the law of the land and claim the NRA, not the Supreme Court, decides the constitutionality of federal laws and the High Courts ability to adjudicate.

    • Veronica Newman

      10th Amendment Buddy

      • Calvinius

        Supremacy clause buddy.

        • David Currie

          Sorry, the supremacy clause states that the constitution is the law of the land, and any law that falls under the constitution, a.k.a constitutional laws. A Ninth circuit court has ruled that Wyoming is a Sovereign state, which means that there is no law higher than its own laws. Just like a sovereign nation’s laws cannot be forced upon another sovereign nation.

          • Calvinius

            The Constitution is and will always be higher than Wyoming’s laws. No court has ever ruled to the contrary, and no court ever will.

    • Richard Einstein

      First of all you are a moron and Obama is not an American, he is a citizen of Indonesia who has forged documents to usurp the office of President. This is an absolute, proven beyond any doubt fact.

      The 10th amendment limits the power of the federal government, leaving all power to the states and the people, not the treasonous criminals in DC.

      • Kenny

        People like you need to spayed and neutered so they won’t be able to reproduce.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          People like you immediately invalidate any argument they may have by being just as offensive (if not moreso) than the very people they seek to chastise.

          • Kenny

            Shane, I don’t give a d*mn what you may or may not think about me. People like you make me sick to my stomach.

        • Michael Dean

          @ KENNY/// After reading THAT loony response about Obama being a citizen of Indonesia, you should have already determined that you’re ‘debating’ with individuals that have apparently invented their own version the ‘Constitution’, and they’re locked-in for life. The Founding Fathers themselves couldn’t convince them how crazy and psychotic they are, should they disagree with THEIR ‘view’ of the World. Lots of luck with this crowd. I just read the public response for kicks.

          • Kenny

            Good morning, Michael. Happy New Year bro. There is something seriously wrong with T E A B A G G E R S

      • Calvinius

        Hilarious, a psychotic Birther like you calling somebody else a moron.

    • Doc Holliday

      Ignorance is the anethstetic for arrogance. You obviously do not understand how Government works or how state government works when it comes to states rights. The universe is made up of protons neutrons and electrons, they forgot morons.

      • Kenny

        Do you thinks states should have the right to legalize slavery? Do you think states should have the right to legalize discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgenders? Do you think states should have the right to legalize discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Atheist, Agnostics, Buddhist, Hindus, Sikhs?

        I know how the government works, I’m a retired Army veteran, son of retired Vietnam War Air Force veteran, grandson of retired WWII Army veteran, great-grandson of African American slaves. I have white, black, Jewish family members. I also know how racism works..I know how cowardly the Klan is and how un-American and un-Christian they are. The sooner all Klan/Neo-Nazis members are dead and burning in hell the better for America.

        • bobfairlane

          LOL. A jewish negro wants to tell us what’s “UnAmerican”. ROFL.

          • Kenny

            I’m not Jewish. My sister in law is and my brother converted to Judaism. How dare you imply that Jewish people are not American. You racist piece of inbred slime!

          • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

            Pot calling the kettle black, now aren’t we? Your obvious racist bent is just as apparent as his, and therefore you have NULLIFIED yourself.

          • Kenny

            I’m racist because I call out racist people for being racist. Whatever dude.

        • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

          If you had a single shred of real military expertise you would know that nullification is upholding the very spirit of the Constitution of the United States. If you had a shred of education on the subject of nullification you would know that, for example, two of our most prominent Founding Fathers (including the Father of the Constitution himself) James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed nullification as a peaceful alternative to revolution, pointing out that not even the Supreme Court can always be trusted to follow the interests of Americans. And no, the Supreme Court is not the final word.

          The PEOPLE are the final word.

          Go READ and EDUCATE yourself before spouting populist bullshit. Amerizombies like you are the most distasteful bunch of government apologists I’ve ever seen.

        • CWS

          You rail against Republicans then in your next comment you bring up the KKK …. Hard to tell if you know what side you are on. Surely you are not lumping Republicans in with the un-American, un-Christian, kkk member democrats! I have never heard anything as ridiculous as you saying that Republican States claim the NRA decides the constitutionality of federal laws… where on God’s green earth did you come up with that pearl?

    • phone2000

      the Constitution clearly makes all gun control illegal….no arguing there ok……it is very clear…

      • Kenny

        Quote which part of the “Constitution clearly makes all gun control illegal.” Put up or shut up Mr. Ammosexual.

      • http://blogvader.tumblr.com/ Blogvader

        Er, no.

        Folks like yourself tried to make that argument in DC versus Heller. You couldn’t even get Antonin Scalia to agree.

  • Frank E. Licata

    Kudos and both thumbs up to Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, and others who are taking the lead to help block tyranny.

  • honestann

    The next step has to be to defend any attempts by FEDERAL goons to arrest, disarm or harm gun owners. Without that, these laudable efforts will be of no long-term significance.

    • nearoffutt

      I have been waiting for years, and seen no effort by the Federals to take anybodies weapons, despite Reagan trying to limit AK and M16 styles. I can buy whatever weapons I want at the Army PX. the military general store. I bought my first rifle at Offutt AFB in 1970. As I lived in the barracks, I had to store it at the military police station or in a lock box in my trunk. No restrictions on owning it, just not open carry on a military instiltion. This looks suspiciously like a political stunt to appease foolish voters. Some individual states and more local units have made restrictions and even outlawed categories. Results are no weapons sold in Chicago, yet on Monday on the radio, the number of killed and wounded over the weekend sounds like a sports score. Uncle Sam does not want you weapons. He never really did. Background checks seem about it, to try to reduce weapons in the hands of some.

  • Richard Einstein

    This law already needs to be changed. The penalty should be at least $50,000 and a minimum of five years at hard labor. $1000 is nothing to the tyrannical zionist banksters who are destroying our nation, they create money out of thin air.

    • Nic Basore

      …Hey there, Zionist Jewish conservative here (PS most Zionists are conservative) I’d like to know how uh, I’m ruining the country.

      • Richard Einstein

        The Federal Reserve and AIPAC are two branches of the zionist shadow government. They are out to destroy our nation…

        • JHall

          You anti-semite conspiracy theorists always crack me up with your insanity. 😀

      • bobfairlane

        You want to spend American money and military resources on Jizzrael, and want to incarcerate white people for defying the jewish supremacists. Calling zionists “conservative” is a joke.

        • Nic Basore

          Are you mentally defective? Jewish supremacists? So you’re telling me that .05% of the populous is controlling the country? Dang, I wish I could get in on this action. I could quit doing hard manual labor! And as for Israel, truth be told, Israel honestly has a better functioning military than the U.S. does in its current state. And it’s a trade off. Israel gets tech for training the S.E.A.L.S. Oh, and before I forget, you like that cell phone? Or that laptop? It was made possible by Israel.

      • Uncle Siam

        Why would Zionsists be conservative when the State of Israel is a hallmark Socialist country?

        • Nic Basore

          Because, socialism ran Israel into the ground (during the war between the socialist Hagnah and right wing Irgun, Britain intervened and armed Hagnah to sabotage it) and it was conservative thinking that saved it from complete annhialation.

        • Nic Basore

          In fact, you’d have n easier time finding conservative Zionists than socialist ones. I myself am an ultra-localized socialist, meaning, I believe family comes first before all, and that it sticks together. Such a model works (usually) because family knows, and loves one another and is willing to sacrifice everything, unlike national socialism where nobody knows anyone, and everyone works to appease the dictatorship, or dies.

    • http://www.pixelgeddon.com/ Shane Stevens

      As they have said, it is a great start. It doesn’t end with a fine, but it all starts with legislation that tells the government ‘No!’ in no uncertain terms.

      Remember, the Federal Family does not like being told no.

  • badman400

    This Gov. is a hero, but the first offense fine should be much more substantial to serve as a real deterrent. As it is now, the feds will laugh as they spend our own tax dollars to pay the fines for committing crimes against us.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0 The_Liberty_Chick

    Nice! may he be the first OF many! Not just on guns…but on all of it! The commie takeover is upon us.

  • worddust

    It’s about time. State Legislators do not have the authority to pass laws that contradict the Constitution, especially Amendments that GUARANTEE BY LAW our rights. The Constitution can only be changed through the Amendment process in Congress or at a Convention of the States. Judges and Prosecutors know this but have been purposely breaking the law to protect the Police, Politicians and Themselves from an armed citizenry that might revolt against their high taxation, seizures of property, and unfair regulation of private business.

    • Calvinius

      And yet, by passing a law claiming to nullify federal laws, state legislators did pass a law that contradicts the Constitution.

    • troll hunter

      These rights are granted by God, the Constitution merely recognizes these pre existing rights and reaffirms them. This is an important aspect of our Republic.

  • Jo Se

    Impose criminal penalties and a separate law making every state citizen a member of the state militia “pool” who can voluntarily activate on Governor’s call, are tax exempt on own purchases of arms and ammunitions, are subject only to state law for their militia pool status, and any federal law to infringe on their arms will be a criminal offense.

    • turtlemom3

      Yes!

    • troll hunter

      inspired idea Jo Se, see if you can get a ballot initiative started.

  • tg

    a great start. but now idaho reps need to work on the 95% of other issues (esp. health & welfare rights for elderly, children & disabled) that idaho falls behind on by at least 30 years due to republican self-interests

    • Revisionist

      Really we see seen leftists global warming models failed in predicting global warming. Now lets look at a leftists political environment of 60 years of poverty run and controlled by Democrats its called Detroit. . Apply the democrat Detroit political environment to the national level and we have a bankrupt nation. California is on this path everything is called education. ..child care services. ..education .. people on welfare going to college ..paid by education funds ….and people on welfare can fail these college classes unlimited amount of times … leftists have their own form of greed thats worse than any corporations. ..at least a corporation offers employment

    • stauggiemom

      How can a state put the rights of nutty gun freaks over the needs of the people in your state. Owning a firearm isnt a NEED it is a WANT. I dont need or want a gun but I do need a competent state and local government to meets the needs of their communities first! Idaho is like going back into pioneer days with it’s mentality. A beautiful state that will lose alot of tourist income because of it. I have wanted to go their but wont because the people are obviously not stable mentally or psychologically when you live in a constant state of fear. I feel sorry for them. I live in Colorado, I have lived out in the high country and never needed a gun!

      • troll hunter

        troll… 2A is what protects us from those who would take all our rights away, and this piece is less about guns and more about rebuking an overreaching Fed

        • stauggiemom

          your comment resembles something Ted Nugent would say. Bunch of stupid fear mongering so they can sell a bunch of inbred idiots more guns to fuel their fear hysteria! What a joke!

          • phone2000

            we have half a billion guns in this country and polls show people are concerned about their gun rights being taken away…so YOU are in the MINORITY…you do not represent how Americans think about guns OK…all you are doing is displaying how ignorant you are

          • stauggiemom

            The only thing I see is all you nut jobs killing each other. Perhaps that isn’t such a bad thing after all, perhaps we should be glad. 😉

          • John Hackett

            Your statement says it all…I feel sorry for you.

          • stauggiemom

            I am the only person here who has anything concrete to say. All you people should just shut up because the comments you people are leaving just keep getting more ridiculous as they go on.

          • stauggiemom

            and a billion guns in our society is NOT something to be proud of and I am proud not to be an IGNORANT sheep!

          • angelccorr

            You have called Idahoans a lot of names. Glad you’re in Colorado, and it’s really none of your business what we do in Idaho!

          • stauggiemom

            It is a real positive thing that a mom had a “Right” to carry her concealed loaded weapon in her purse that she left next to her kid instead of holding it on her shoulder, cause now shes dead and her rights are dead along with her. Alot of good it did her.

          • stauggiemom

            That could have been an innocent bi-stander that was killed with that gun or her kids! You people just do not get it! allowing people to walk around with loaded weapons is a bad idea…period! she deserved to be the one that lost her life because she was irresponsible in her actions, but it could have been someone else that had to die because of her stupidity. thankfully it wasn’t

          • John Hackett

            She made a mistake and people make mistakes…happens in cars thousands of times a year…think we should all go back to walking every time we want to travel? Ever ride an airplane…its called risk…..what to be safe and taken care of…try prison…its all done for you.

          • stauggiemom

            nice way to excuse her carelessness, at least it wasn’t someone else who had to die.

          • stauggiemom

            It would suck to have someone say “oh sorry I shot your kid in the face, my bad it was just an accident” How ridiculous!

          • angelccorr

            Yeah, you could point to that as an argument, but we don’t ban cars because people misuse them and get in accidents, and since you’re in Colorado, your state allows marijuana use even though people drive their cars while high!
            Also, there are many women who have been able to save their lives and lives of their children, because they carried a gun. I don’t like people like you who are so quick to take away rights because you read about an accident in the paper. They banned guns in China, and now people attack with knives. Should we ban knives too if that happened in the U.S.. Rights are rights, and people misuse them all the time. Just like you calling names with your free speech. You may have the right, but you lack responsibility with your rights. That’s why I don’t trust people with your opinion.

          • stauggiemom

            Same old same old. Fact, knives don’t kill like guns do…And I am not against owning guns for hunting. I am however sick and tried of reading about irresponsible gun owners who’s guns kill other people and it is happening on a daily basis in this country. And people may drive “High” in my state, I don’t know. but what I do know is people drive drunk all over this country and kill people with cars everyday so what is your point about the weed? I don’t hear about “High” people driving around killing people. You can’t compare cars to guns in these situations. but anything for you people to justify your way of thinking I suppose.

          • angelccorr

            I’m proud of my way of thinking. I’m not talking about taking your rights away, and if you are tired of reading about gun owners, then don’t read it. In fact, mind your own business. Take care of Colorado, and we’ll take care of Idaho.

          • jeff200

            There are 70,000 shootings in the USA every year, about 25-30,000 result in death (suicide and murder combined).

            Americans drive 3 Trillion (3,000,000,000,000) miles a year. 25-30,000 people die in accidents, 30% DUI related (Compared to the rest of the world 18-20%), thats about 10,000 deaths. While certainly, we could do more to reduce the number, to say nothing is being done is ludicrous.

            If you assume the average miles driven per use of a vehicle is about 60 (it is likely far less), then there is about 1 death for every 1.6 million uses of a car, and I alcohol related death for every 5.5 million uses of a car.

            The death rate for guns is about 1 in every 2 uses, whether the user is drunk, stoned, sober or just plain republi… nuts.

            That’s the difference between a machine designed to carry it’s passengers down to the local corner store, and a machine designed to help the owner rob the store.

            People die in car ACCIDENTS – when cars are not used correctly.

            People die when guns are used exactly as they are designed to be used AND in gun accidents.

            Or do you suggest we also talk about banning life simply because it invariably results in death?

            The car v gun argument is about as dumb as it gets.

          • angelccorr

            “The death rate for guns is about 1 in every 2 uses, whether the user is drunk, stoned, sober or just plain republi… nuts.”
            Where did you get that death rate? From the streets of Chicago?
            And your stereotype of Republicans reads as though you are a snob! I bet you are pro-abortion, yet you cry about guns killing people. What is it that scares you so much about guns? I am sorry to tell you, but you have been feminized, and psychologically neutered. You must be a city boy, who never had to protect livestock from predators, or put down a sick animal. Do you even know how to hunt or fish? Would you even know how to feed your family if you didn’t have a supermarket nearby? And now you and your kind think you should take other people’s rights away to own a gun. Most of the gun deaths you talk about are from criminals. Do you really believe criminals would turn in their guns? Or would your leftist, naïve thinking just leave people undefended? I tell you right now, the men of Idaho will never give up their guns, so what will you and your ilk do next? Our governor and our law enforcement are gun owners too and many are outdoorsmen. What are you going to do? Come try and take them. I dare you!

          • jeff200

            That baby also had a right own a gun under the 2nd. There are NO limits:

            ‘Shall not be infringed’

          • Combat_Vet

            You are so blinded by your left winged progressive notions that you cannot see to understand reality, or the Constitution

          • stauggiemom

            Sure……The only thing giving all the citizens guns has done is cause alot of heartache and loss of life. You assume I am “Left” I am neither because they are both corrupt. You fools are the blind ones. Divide and conquer that is there intention! Divide the people, black/ white, left/right, perhaps you are the ones who need to WAKE UP!

          • John Hackett

            We are wide awake to what is happening to this country…..look what happened to a rancher in Nevada…hint….Bundy Ranch….and tell me people can’t make a difference when government over reaches…and tanks can be stopped…happens in combat all the time.

          • stauggiemom

            The government didn’t over reach Bundy did by not paying the dues he owes to BLM. Ranchers are nothing but welfare cattle barons, grazing and trampling public lands that belong to all of us not just them!

          • John Hackett

            You sound like you are living in fear…fear of guns…..I have no problem with you not wanting a gun…thats fine with me…but don’t try to take any of mine. Study history and see what happens to unarmed people when governments turn on their own people….Hitler comes to mind but he was not the worst one…he had serious competition…and governments are the cause of more death in this world than any other reason.

          • stauggiemom

            No, just fear of stupid gun nuts…There is more of a danger of being shot by one of them than getting into a deadly car accident, plane crash, or being killed by a “terrorist” or all combined….You people are the terrorists we face every day in our country. We fear YOU!

      • Mervyn Russell

        This law is not about owning a gun, you are not forced to buy a weapon. This is a matter of choice. This law is about the Constitution, the right to keep and bare arms. owning a gun is not for people to go around shooting up the place, it’s plainly stated that keeping arms to resist tyranny by the State and Federal Governments. I hope that you never have need of a gun. In a perfect World there surely would not be any need of owning a gun of any kind or maybe except to hunt for food. There are lots of folks that do get most of their food by this means.

        • stauggiemom

          Resisting tyranny by owning a gun? There are better ways to fight the government …Your guns wont protect you from your government. They are corrupt as all get out and your or my guns aren’t going to stop them. However, now we have to deal with a bunch of people who own and carry around loaded weapons who are pissed and scared. Not a good combination….

          • phone2000

            dear you are horribly ignorant…history shows when a government wants to start messing with the people the first thing they do is take the guns….then people begin to die…in all of world history…the greatest killer of all man kind everywhere is government…it is called DEMOCIDE….

          • Glenn Gallaher

            If you believe that to be accurate, you are very far under educated. 94% of the police did not go to work in New Your to protest 2 pigs being killed. And what you claim that a bunch of people pissed and scared is nothing but a scare tactic of someone that is pushing government agenda. I understand that 27,000 plus tickets were not written and 27,000 plus citizens were not harassed, and that 27,000 plus citizens did not die because the cops, police, pigs were not on a job of paid governmental harassment of the citizens. You saying that it is not good to be as well armed as the thugs of government, yet when 94% called in and did not show up for work, New York did not burst into flames. When 94% of the cops called in, there were no more but less murders and less killing by government agents in blue during that time. Hmm, so this idea that you are posing is nothing more then that of a scared little person, someone that shows this type of fear as Freud would say is ‘sexually immature if they show a fear of a gun (or firearm)’. This is nothing more than a little child that has not the maturity to be able to comprehend the world around them and wants the protection of their parents and never have to go and face the reality of the world. Sorry I am not one of those people, I call a rose by a rose and not pretend it is something it is not. You however so do not understand, and you vote? Sorry your view of government is a protection, is wrong and to think that there is a better way to fight government then having those in government fear for their lives, that is no answer. The reason for that is look at Obama and what he does and has done to this country because there is no congress man or woman with the balls or the courage of the fear to do what is needed to take this bastard out of office. There is no fear in government from the slaves they keep any more because they no longer fear for their lives if they are total screw ups. In fact at current time in government, the way to get promoted is by being a total screw up. So your ideas, and old and venomous to a health person. Please do not use the first amendment any more, I revoke your right to use it, just as you would revoke my right of the second to have a fire arm to defend your stupidity to say that you disagree with my second amendment rights.

          • stauggiemom

            I do not trust my government, I am not ignorant. But I do know that arming myself won’t change them, stop them or prevent them from coming into any town USA with an arsenal of tanks if they so please and no gun you have is going to stop them. And you called me uneducated…nice try! Me not liking weapons does not make “sexually immature” Give me a break…Very humorous post Thanks for the chuckle

          • John Hackett

            Really staugglemom? Have you ever accessed the hunters in the US and the numbers? If you believe you can …or you can’t….your probably right. The armed US citizens are the largest homeland security force in the world….bar none. We ave perfectly capable of stopping a tyrannical action by this government or any other force. Your making statements that are totally unfounded …..do some research……take a look at Switzerland and their home land defence…….

          • Mervyn Russell

            The people that you are describing that are gun owners that are scared, I do not know any people like you are talking about. A law abiding gun owner is not afraid of anyone or anything. If there are people like the ones you are placing in this category they have no busy owning a weapon of any kind. There’s nothing more dangerous than a coward with a gun. Or, some one that has no training with firearms. I don’t think anyone has the right answer to all our problems, not anyone on this Earth anyway.

          • arvopart

            All gun fetishists are by nature cowardly.

      • Doug Griffiths

        But it appears you will allow the feds to rule all facets of your life and not allow you to decide for yourself what you want or need. No a gun is NOT needed in todays world here in most of this country I will agree but why should the feds dictate your life. You have a choice now but if the feds have their way you will have no choice.

      • John Hackett

        The Jews in WW2 did not need a gun either…the Government took care of them, I hope you never need a gun…but thats your choice…dont make other peoples choices for them, we all make our own choices in life. Ask the citizens in Kobane if they feel the need for a gun….or would you rather let ISIS take care of them? You never need a gun….until you “need” a gun.

        • webb wesley

          No difference between Hitler and The white house. They just moved to America. Please research, another mind blown away by facts would make my year. God bless

          • John Hackett

            The big difference is “We The People” are not about to let any force take our liberty teeth…I have no faith in our government…God Bless you too.

          • webb wesley

            You have no say or freedom, the day Americans realize that is the day you will honestly be free. You have no say in the wars youve been in, the justice system, healthcare, you cant even audit the federal reserve. Im just warning people, the petrodollar will end soon and there will be chaos, Dont only stand for your self. Stand for the people that youve been accepting stolen oil from, the people America has killed. Its time Revolt!

      • sarah

        Well aren’t you special.

        May you live in Colorado all the days of your life because those people in other states that feel they do need guns sure don’t want your kind here in our states.

        Ever visited Detroit or Atlanta after midnight … alone?

        Lots of unarmed people don’t make it out alive that time of night.

        And, yes there are reasons to be in these cities at night.

        Hospital emergencies comes to mind first, but there are other reasons as well.

      • Stacie Ann Huppert

        Then don’t own a gun, it is that simple. By the way, lot of people need guns, that is how they feed their families.

      • Baby Dokes

        Protecting yourself is not a need, it’s a right.

        • stauggiemom

          I also have a right to feel protected from irresponsible gun owners and there are plenty of those….

          • Baby Dokes

            Obviously you have no idea about gun stats from the FBI, ATF and other studies. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/crime-and-guns/

          • stauggiemom

            Is this supposed to make me feel better about what is happening on a daily basis in our country? if so, it doesn’t but nice try.

          • Baby Dokes

            What’s happening on a daily basis? Oh you mean the spread of propaganda to further the liberal agenda? Nevermind the stats I just posted…It’s just factual information on the truth about firearms, but who needs that right?;) Just keep buying into the liberal narrative!

          • stauggiemom

            “Liberal Agenda” that is comical. You call a liberal agenda taking food from moms and kids while giving themselves a $1000 a month car allowance. Taking from our people to build and fund their wars , to build more war machines, instead of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. No sir, that is a conservative agenda that is destroying this nation, not liberals. You blame liberals because they would rather help people in need than fund never ending wars and selfish governments. Blame the poor, but don’t hold the stealing rich responsible….You know like the big banks who don’t pay taxes etc etc! Please and you people question my way of thinking. Laughable, so laughable.

          • Baby Dokes

            That’s it, divert and become smug. Oh your great intelligence. The issue here was firearms, but as you lost that battle you took it elsewhere in the midst of your emotional response. Also in your rant you made many assumptions about my stances on other issues…and they were wrong. Helping people in need? Over 80% of people in the U.S. living below the “poverty” level have a cell phone and over 90% have a TV. Your other ramblings aren’t worth my time. Laughable? Yes you are. Go read a book and stop getting your education from Facebook MEMEs!

          • stauggiemom

            YOU are the one who diverted the conversation with your “Liberal agenda” comment and this country is far from a liberal agenda! Yeah poor people shouldn’t have cell phones or Tv’s, yeah they should just know better, is that what you are getting at? But don’t divert the conversation! If we could only stop the FOX news watchers then we would be getting somewhere!

          • Baby Dokes

            Again, you missed the boat. The “liberal agenda” comment was in regards to gun control. My point on the cell phones and TVs is missed by you yet again. People who have cell phones and TVs aren’t exactly living in poverty are they? You are simply ignorant. Happy New Year! That’s all from me!:)

          • stauggiemom

            WRONG again!

          • Averagewhitemale

            Conservatives giving away money? go ask your messiah why Solyndra and all the other failed green energy companies were given our money. Ask him why GE has not paid taxes under his administration.
            The reason Fox news is still on the air is because their ratings are miles ahead of your commie news stations based on VIEWERS. Go watch Ed “tingle leg” with the other 3 people.

          • stauggiemom

            I bet you would like it if people you didn’t know concerned themselves with how you spend your money too. What do you care anyway. Oh maybe some of you tax dollars fund that phone or TV right and that would suck but cover big banks and walmart not paying taxes and that is just fine and dandy!

          • pookieamos

            The Liberal agenda prevents those big banks and corporations from paying taxes , laughable and uninformed.

          • bug

            oh my gosh, too much kool aid!

          • stauggiemom

            Sucks when you have nothing original or meaningful to say. Get a brain….

          • angelccorr

            Talk to your president about all that your complaining about. He’s the food stamp president! You had a democrat congress and a democrat president and what did you accomplish – Obama Care that working-class people can’t even afford. Why don’t you tell Obama to quit pouring money in to boondoggles like Solyndra and do something about infrastructure? Tell him to stop letting illegals in by the millions, so the American poor you talk about can have jobs!

          • stauggiemom

            Clueless idiot. The rich men in congress get more handouts than the poor. You people need to try education, it is an amazing tool, one that none of you obviously know anything about. Very sad, and the saddest is that you all probably reproduce….Potatoes are more intelligent than you all…

          • angelccorr

            Oh, I made you angry. Name-callers are easy to tick off, because they’re insecure, and need to put others down to elevate themselves, but in reality it works just the opposite. You will increase your low self-esteem by the way you conduct yourself.

          • Contrarianthefirst

            Even the professors at Harvard are complaining about the costs… and they’re all uber “liberals”.

          • American4patriotism

            If you feel so much safer where guns are more regulated then go walk through downtown Chicago !

          • bug

            ha ha, good one!! how bout it stauggie?

          • stauggiemom

            How bout what? Every comment here resembles a preschoolers intellect…No comment on my part is needed. All of your ignorant comments are enough to solidify my point. Thank you

          • Bob Coco

            If you subtract the gun deaths in LA, Chicago, Detroit and new Orleans, the US is the 4th safest nation in the world. The problem is not guns, it’s liberal policies that have made our major cities war zones.

          • Michael

            “I also have a right to feel protected from irresponsible gun owners and there are plenty of those….”

            Such a deal I have for you. You should feel protected from irresponsible gun owners, by RESPONSIBLE gun owners, and there are A LOT more responsible ones than irresponsible ones.

            As an aside, you don’t have the right to “feel protected” from irresponsible gun owners any more than I have a right to “feel protected” from over-reaching statists like yourself. You can feel whatever you want – you don’t get to govern the actions of others to satisfy your feelings, however.

            Simply put, my actual right to keep and bear arms overrides your supposed right to use your feelings as justification for restricting other people’s liberty.

          • American4patriotism

            Amen to that brother !!

          • jeff200

            Except that by eliminating the ability to act on 2nd amendment restriction, there is no longer the right to even suggest what responsible and irresponsible means. Give a baby a loaded handgun? ‘Shall not be infringed’. Convicted murderer out on parole? ‘Shall not be infringed’.

            ‘Shall not be infringed’, has NO limits. The framers had no idea what the state of weaponry would become: ‘Shall not be infringed’.

          • Michael

            No one said anything about “eliminating the ability to act on 2nd Amendment restrictions.” Laws that leave even the State Patrol wondering what it means or how to enforce it are clearly unconstitutionally vague, whether they deal with firearms or not.

            The framers also had no idea that eventually the internet would be invented, yet the first amendment still applies to email.

            Ultimately, if you don’t like what “shall not be infringed” means, you’re welcome to exercise the provisions of Article V. Trying to change it by legislation or jurisprudence is wrong. If 90% of the population wants background checks, like we keep getting told, then following the path laid out in Article V should be a piece of cake.

          • pookieamos

            Well said , bravo !

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            Actually NO you do not have the RIGHT TO FEEL…..anything….YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHT to TAKE EFFECTIVE SELF GOVERNING MEASURE of your surroundings and prepare yourself accordingly and adequately. But your right to feel any certain way does absolutely NOT give you the right to use FORCE of the GUN to take my GUNS……as an American…..as a fundamental un alienable right. And arguing the point really is treasonous. All the statistics prove your feeling a phobia.

          • stauggiemom

            You are an idiot

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            Really……. how so……please explain “specifically”. Name calling without anything else to back it up, is merely childish…..why waste everyone’s time….and leave NOTHING to back it up? Because you have NOTHING.

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            Ok….well tell me how I am incorrect…….What I said is FACT

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            Still waiting on an actual intelligent comment……any substance at all……lol

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            No….but you seem to be a self centered brat……to think that you have the right to “feel” a certain way and have it infringe upon my un alienable Rights. What that means is that you are either Constitutionally ignorant, or you are a Marxist traitor……either way is not a good thing…..Pull your head from the place where the sun is not shining.

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            ? Please elaborate…… Show me the “right to feel” anywhere in jurisprudence please…..or run shrieking into the night like the buffoon you are.

          • stauggiemom

            Your point is pointless. I do and cannot feel safe from irresponsible gun owners by being protected by responsible ones. The responsible ones are never around. Gun lovers always use the same stupid analogies over and over again. None of which make a bit of sense to a competent educated person. Clueless hicks all of you!

          • Michael

            Um…where did I use an analogy? And how do you know the responsible gun owners are never around; There’s a thing called concealed carry. I carry daily, and you wouldn’t know it unless I told you.

            As for your delightful ad hominem attack about how gun lovers must be clueless hicks, and not competent or educated, I’ll have you know that I have a degree in Economics and have been a Business Intelligence Engineer for almost a decade. Clueless, uneducated, incompetent hick? Not so much, but thanks for playing.

            If you’d like to do something OTHER than make personal attacks, perhaps you’ll respond to my argument that how you feel is completely irrelevant. You have the right to feel whatever you want, but you don’t have the right to use your feelings as the basis for the restriction of other people’s liberty. If I got to use my feelings in the same way, your first amendment rights would be revoked/restricted in the same way that you are suggesting that my second amendment rights should be.

            If my point is so pointless why are you (apparently) unable to refute it. Show me any document relevant to our country’s legal tradition that suggests that you have the right to violate other people’s liberty for the sake of your feelings.

            Go on. I’ll wait.

          • bug

            u’re sick and scary, not the responsible gun owner. i’ll take a 100 gun owners to 1 of u. any day.

          • stauggiemom

            I hope you shoot yourself or someone else does it for us

          • OB-1

            No, you do not.

          • Contrarianthefirst

            “Feeling, nothing more than, FEELings…”

        • Ben R Sizemore

          These guys don’t know what rights are. They think they have a right to disarm America. Therefore we have the need to show them what our right can do if they try.

      • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

        Your …”ideas” no-matter how ridiculous ….does not trump my “rights” ….wow….what school did you go to that screwed your mind up so badly ?

        • stauggiemom

          It’s called College, apparently not a one of you have heard of it.

          • Contrarianthefirst

            Oh, Cow College or Clown?

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Worse, liberal

          • Contrarianthefirst

            I hear ya, Bem. Cow College is too good for it.

          • jeff200

            For them, that’s the three years between grade 2 and 4.

          • stauggiemom

            😀 Right on Jeff! You nailed it!

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Yeah he did, but his head was in they way, now he only has 2 brain cells active. You are just as stupid, three years between grade 2 and 4, what a couple of idiots. I hope your job at WalMart is not as a cashier. Any second greater would discover those errors. No BS explanation is acceptable other than you are just lacking intelligence and abundant in ignorance.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            No I don’t think so, the last grade school poll, using questions about the Constitution, the kids scored 300 points higher than the college graduate. So I presume for you guys it would K1 thru K3, since the kids were so much smarter. Well you proved it in your statement, three years between grades 2 and 4. You sound about as educated as your “Great One” and his 57 states. You see why educated people have such a hard time getting jobs other than fast food, Wal Mart, US Gov’t, community organizers, doormen, etc.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            No it is called Socialists and Liberal Indoctrination and Brainwashing. The college he went to paid $200,000 for their accreditation.

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            Really……. and that comment is based on what? The fact that we do not agree with you ? So everyone who is not a Communist does not have a rightful place in society right? You going the same was as the Eugene Oregon Council Member Bernstein too ?

          • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

            Yes….I should have guessed……they are dumbing down all the schools with a ton of ultra Progressive Liberal non-sense…..and of course after which you idiots think u know everything because you were good regurgitators of Bullshit. My statement is lawfully and factually correct. Your “feelings” or “Ideas” do not trump Natural Rights…..

      • sbuttz2588

        Live in fear I live in when I can’t carry you do know that the states with the most liberal gun laws have less crime and states with more restrictive gun laws have higher crime

      • stauggiemom

        Another highly intelligent human from Idaho… it is a daily basis of stupid now…….You people have no defense. http://www.idahostatejournal.com/members/police-charge-mom-for-gun-near-kids/article_232c8d2a-9316-11e4-92b0-df06b197d068.html

        • stauggiemom

          Instead of making legislation that allows citizens of Idaho to open carry, the state should require their citizens to get educated! mandatory higher education!!!!!! Stupid is out of control in this state!

          • Contrarianthefirst

            Mandatory education has done nothing but produce multiple generations of blithering idiots… such as you.
            Run off and lick the hand that beats you, Miss Stockholm Syndrome.

          • stauggiemom

            Lack of education produces the kind of blubbering idiots you find here, such as yourself. You people are so scary..Scary stupid people with guns.

          • Contrarianthefirst

            I don’t work for the NYPD.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            You are such a COWARD, I bet you call the police when you see a gun on TV.

          • stauggiemom

            I bet you didn’t even finish high school, what a maroon….Only a person with NO education could shun education and claim it is useless.

          • Contrarianthefirst

            Actually, got out of high school alive and went into the military.

            Been making up for the state’s lack in educating (as oppose to indoctrinating) since then.

            Btw, isn’t Gruber a “Professor”? Yes, seems he’s in an “institution of higher learning”… yet he called you socialists “stupid”. On that note, maybe there is something to being a paper-pusher after all.

          • stauggiemom

            That is exactly what stupid lazy people do , join the military. With the thought that I will be taken care of if I sacrifice my life…..Perfect place for dummies like you.

          • Contrarianthefirst

            Actually, got out in 3/5, was first a carpenter, then an Iron Worker, then a union Boilermaker.
            Yes, I have been lazy all of my adult life, thank you for pointing that out.
            *sarcasm off…

          • Ben R Sizemore

            You didn’t join the military because you are a coward. You are such a weakling you would not survive training. You are anti-American and have a firm faith in socialism, if that was brought out in some of your cowardly acts in the military you would suffer many blanket parties and be sent back to you mammy to finish nursing and potty training you. What do you see in the mirror? A wimpy coward? A socialist that wants Americans to lay down their rights at the government’s feet? A disgusting creep? The reason you live in CO is that the socialist state of WA kicked you out. And CO is the only state that likes people with your ideals. So please stay in CO. Don’t become a tourist because most states now have gun freaks.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            I see it did you a lot of good…..what is a maroon? Is that CO speak for “smarter than me?”

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Read my comment to you above. You lack of intelligence is making Nancy Pelosi look like a genius, heaven help us.

      • Nitsuj

        Before you go speaking for us Idahoans who “live in fear”, please take a moment to check your facts. Our state has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and I have lived here all my life without fear of being shot. People here love their guns, yes, but you also need to consider probably half the state hunts. I’m not a gun nut. In fact, I’ve never even shot a gun, but I respect people’s right to have them. I don’t normally speak out in these kinds of things, but I feel like this level of ignorance needed to be addressed. I don’t mean to sound crass, but given that you live in Colorado, I think you’ve got us beat in the number of mass shootings.

        I do agree, however, that our state government is shit. Unfortunately, Bitch Otter was reelected because not even half of the state voted in the midterms!

      • Contrarianthefirst

        Colorado… figures.

        • stauggiemom

          stupid potato farmers,and sheep herders…. figures

          • Contrarianthefirst

            Feed your own self then. While you’re at it, provide the electricity running your computer, the fuel for your cross-over, tires for the latter, the labor and equipment for building the roads leading to your local store…
            Oh, that’s right; Your all powerful “State” does all these things for you.
            A product of catholic social doctrine, operating via the principle of subsidiarity… and you don’t even know it.

          • stauggiemom

            Blubbering idiot, you make no sense. Stay in Idaho with the rest of the retards.

          • Contrarianthefirst

            Very nice. See what that sheep’s skin got you? The vocabulary of a 10 year old.
            Outstanding!

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Hey stay in CO with all the socialists and the Hollywood socialists, I bet you are chummy with them huh? Do they let you carry their skis up the slope while they take the lift, then tip you with their autograph?

          • Ben R Sizemore

            I know you are an educated fool, same as your “Great One.” But read the fine print on the diploma, “This certificate does not grant you intelligence, common sense or the ability to think logically. In order to accomplish these you must not be a liberal or a socialist, because out of 100 million tested, none have shown any of these traits, if you do not become either of these, then you must believe in and support the Constitution of the United States. You are also required to not covet thy neighbor’s sheep.” So you see all that money paid still hasn’t done you any good.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Oh so you are Islamic, that is why you wanted to go to Idaho, you want sheep that were raised on clean air. I guess the CO sheep from all that foul air makes you stink. And with all those gun freaks you are afraid that they will shoot you for humping their sheep. Now it all comes to light.

      • -CR

        Your statement is naïve. It may be a ‘want’ for some, but it is a ‘need’ for some, also. I grew up in rural Idaho, and there were families who depended upon the meat they hunted themselves in order to make it through the winter. Maybe city folks don’t understand that, but it is still a way of life in parts of this country. The problem with these kinds of controversial issues is that the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ value changes depending upon who’s perspective and situation you’re considering. I’m not a gun-rights activist, but I do understand there are two completely valid sides of this issue. When you live where there are wild predators, when you depend upon your livestock for your living, when you live close to nature and further from paved parking lots and police squads…well you might find yourself wondering why people would think guns ought to be taken away from folks. Maybe there are situations where some forms of gun control would be beneficial. But I sure don’t want anyone who is ignorant of the legitimate need for firearms in my society to be the decision-maker on how controls should be defined. I’d rather trust my state-level than my federal one, because my state knows my situation better.

        • stauggiemom

          get your head out of your ass

          • Ben R Sizemore

            You have your head up the ass “Great One”. I guess you like the aroma and taste of the Islamic ass.

      • Ben R Sizemore

        We can see that you do not believe our country is being attacked by our federal government. The thing about you is that you are so self centered, you think you are speaking for the people of Idaho, you are not. I have spent some time in Idaho and met some really nice people who are down to earth, patriotic and believe in the US Constitution, unlike you. The people are very intelligent and have common sense, these are two traits you may learn when you grow up. As far a tourism, you do not speak for tourist either, sorry to hurt your ego. Tourisism

    • Ben R Sizemore

      So the Obama administration is behind by 40 years because of liberal stupidity and failure to abide by the Law of the Land. Socialists refuse to acknowledge that the government under LBJ and carter took out the states in their role of education, health and human services, and installed under Obama a socialized health care system which has failed, he and his ignorant spouse has pretty much ruined the public school system. In addition he is at war with states that are setting their own requirements for welfare drug testing and requirements of employment search. So take your socialist ideals elsewhere, perhaps some brain dead sites on FB that will like you ideals. They really aren’t interesting enough for any merit for the intelligent patriots of America.

  • will

    Why don’t you get the he’ll out of our country and go to the uk. Then you don’t have to worry about us Americans and our guns.

  • stone8

    Get off the dime Texas, this should have already been done!

  • JimInAuburn

    Really no different than what the liberal states and cities did by not enforcing immigration laws.

    • daveveselenak

      … but the big difference is that it will be appealed to a federal commie judge and then rescinded!

      • SurvivAllExpert

        no… see Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
        read about what Sheriff Mack and the other Sheriffs at CSPOA.org are doing!

      • Ben R Sizemore

        How can they rescind a state law? Never has it been done before, it would require a US constitutional amendment under Article V.

  • Bertha

    Thanks Bitch Otter.

  • DBrenchley

    Nice exercise in States rights; unfortunately the courts will rule it unconstitutional on some grounds .. be watching the test case .. you can bet it’s coming to a State near you

    • Ben R Sizemore

      The federal courts could would not be able to issue a proper narrative that would be accepted.

  • jeff200

    And there you have it: No limits on the kind of ‘arms’ in Idaho: Chemical? Biological? Nuclear? All now legal in Idaho. Morons.

    Kids? Criminals? All now have the right to carry ANYTHING in Idaho. Morons.

    But then, no one expects better from Americans.

    • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

      Bro….International Communist UN affiliated Council on Foreign Relations JP Morgan FRONT ~ Bankers ~ ?? UNLIMITED PRINTING PRESS ??…..this law has no teeth and is no start at all but in my opinion smoke and mirrors. If a Federal Program is going to pay out thousands per officer and the offense is only a 1000 fine. In a short time with the right push we can be taken. NO FEDERAL LAWS ON FIREARMS should be enforced under penalty of immediate PRISON ! That and ONLY that will do anything real in the real world. Look to history if you don’t believe me. They are doing things behind the backs of the public by using social media to establish “Threat assessments” before they ever have contact with you in a Federal Program…..this is SMOKE and MIRRORS….

      • Ben R Sizemore

        Thomas put a lid on it, your adding to Genius of Nancy Pelosi with you comments. Are you normally this arrogant, or does this only happen when you powder your nostrils. Good thing you aren’t married, you would be in jail for speaking like this in front of kids and your spouse, that would be child abuse and spousal abuse.

        • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

          Well, that was rather an “entertaining” response. Of course, it makes absolutely NO SENSE, at least not to those who have no way of knowing who you are by the info you used to try and bait me…….but entertaining, none the less. And spoken like a true government PIG SHILL. You idiots just do not know how not to identify yourselves. Should I tell you how I know who you are…..or will you just sulk away now? LMAO Or perhaps you can tell everyone how you know my marital status……but of course you have ESP, not my NCIC and Homeland Security Threat Assessment in front of you. But you really should read it more carefully…..the domestic violence arrest/complaint was tossed when the ex was stupid enough to call a mutual friend and tell him not only that she lied to the police to get me arrested, but also began an “intimate relationship with a local cop just to make sure she would be successful……IDIOT. ( Guess you aren’t privy to Internal Affairs documents in that program you are using….Bring yourself here…..if you have the guts to leave the badge behind, so I can teach you a lesson about being a treasonous letch. We are coming for all of you…..and when we do, we will make good use of the courtroom before the Oak tree and the rope. Come on……Come and Take It !

        • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

          Nice try….attacking a Conservative by labeling me with Pelosi…… really…..hats off to your idiocy

        • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

          NO….

        • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

          Wow…..lets see…child abuse, arrogance….all of this defaming VOID of any real content that you can refute on a specific position…..but sure….i am the one arrogant……well Ill take that any day over what you appear to be which is IGNORANT of any factually based intelligent content……. wow,.

    • Contrarianthefirst

      As you have deemed yourself incompetent to bear any weapon, of any sort, I as a free man accept your self judgement… for yourself alone. From this day forward, you shall be left only those “defenses” that your nanny state provides you.
      May you lick the hand that beats you.

    • Libtard exterminator

      Jeff- you are 1 big ignoramus! Please do not visit me in Idaho – you might not like what you come face to face with!

      • jeff200

        That’s jeff200 to you Libtard. Bring it on.

      • stauggiemom

        No one in there right mind would visit a state full of violent idiots such as yourselves….Cant have a wolf derby, we will just go kill the elk instead, and some coyotes too because we have got to shoot something up! Idaho is one of the stupidest states in the nation! Bunch of meth heads!

        • Ben R Sizemore

          No, you are in the stupidest state, state of stupidity and ignorance. Socialists should exterminated not heard.

    • stauggiemom

      I hope they exterminate the entire state with their own biological weapons, that would be the best thing that could happen…..

      • Contrarianthefirst

        You are an excellent example of, and for, all socialists, everywhere.

        Isn’t the Borg calling you back to the Hive?

      • Ben R Sizemore

        Another intelligent deficient clown. Nancy you are looking more like a genius with every comment the socialist make.

    • Ben R Sizemore

      You are so intelligent deficient, your making Nancy Pelosi look like a genius.

  • aznative

    Every state in this nation should be doing this and kicking out all federal agencies out of their states and protecting state sovereignty. That time is now. The
    Majority of agencies are illegal and nothing but criminal enterprises including illegal foreign unconstitutional terrorist syndicates including the illegal UN. All states should be demanding the UN leave our borders immediately. They are nothing but a terrorist syndicate operating in this nation illegally. No more. Not one more dime to the UN or DC.

    • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

      For 1000 dollers per man with this law you have bought their freedom….for another 20 Gs you have bought them….it has NO TEETH….spread the word.

  • aznative

    Actually the federal govt no longer represents this nation. The current federal Govt is an illegal unconstitutional foreign radical syndicate. It has broken all the laws of our constitution. So they no longer represent this union. It is time to kick all Federal agencies out of the states and abolish this corrupt illegal foreign mess. Now! Not one more dime. And it is time to arrest some traitors and terrorists now. This is our right per our founding fathers to abolish this illegal corrupt mess. It is time to shut down and turn off the lights in DC. And start over. And we should never never never allow the federal govt to be involved in education, healthcare or welfare. We need a new govt. let’s ask Texas ask to start it and be our temporary new govt. Shut the White House and congress and courts down and turn them into museums. Because it all belongs to us not the federal govt period.

    Limited and their only job is protecting this nations borders and our sovereignty.

    • webb wesley

      how r we going to do this!! We need to take action immediately!

      • aznative

        Demand governors kick out federal agencies and arrest the traitors in DC. We need to send a posse.

        • webb wesley

          Let’s write a open letter to Russia, the only person stopping Amerkkka from world demonition is Putin. I’m in Canada and I support the American people not your govrnment . Wake up guys do something

          • Jon Holt

            i feel you i live in the usa and its just so sad at all the people just sleeping thought all this crap. some people are slowly waking up but not sure if it will be enough to stop this before they get any worst

          • webb wesley

            I really hope everyone wakes up. We are all oppressed by the government no matter your skin colour.
            They charge you to live on earth. They keep Tesla s inventions on free energy from us. & Stan Meyers (was killed) because he invented cars running on water.( God knows what else.)
            Instead of killing are plant everybody on earth can smoke weed. Stop cutting trees and grow hemp. . Are children can be more focused on loving the earth and animals instead of being in doctrine to be obedient and in class. While their parents work their ass off and they arent home ( still struggling to pay bills.) We would have better family structure but they dont want that. They want to divide us, by colour of r skins, political party, wealth and want us to be consumers, Its a new year a new world. The elite need to move on, theyve had their fun since the 1930s, Its time to be living a simpler life because we have the right to as human beings. Why are all the WhistleBlowers being detained, there isnt something right and theres more to life then this! Divided we fall, United we CONQUER

          • Michael Hain

            Dam right Webb couldn’t of said it better myself. Right on.

          • webb wesley

            Thanks bro, im sick of this shit! Youtube Paradise or Oblivion-The venus Project, I think enjoy it, What are future can be if we end their power, We cant really evolve. Write me after you watch it! Peace!

          • Daryl K. Sauerwald

            Well,let put this were it belongs. I remember when Pres. Reagan decide to support Putin. ” I knew he was a good man (Putin) when I saw him wearing the crucifix his mother gave him.” R.Reagen. Yes,cause anyone sporting a religious symbol must be good.

          • webb wesley

            Daryl, its not about religion. Its about who controls the world currency controls the WORLD! by The American government and the federal Reserve they can longer be trusted because of their actions! We are dived by are belief, and skin colour when that doesnt matter. We are collateral damage and nothing more then a tax payer to them

          • Daryl K. Sauerwald

            Sorry but your wrong. the particular issue that i mentioned is about religion,which dose and still plays a vital role in keeping people in office,getting people in office,and justifying actions like RR’s support of Putin. So RR’s made very bad decision a decision that put the whole world in danger and the religious extremist in this country ate it up,now the world get to reap the reward. Obama’s action regarding Ukraine would not even be a issue if not for RR’s pussy pro authoritarian attitude. RR is one of the people owned by international fascist Banking. But conservatives refuse to see the super-hyper-hypocracy of their own position.Religion is historical one of the most useful tools to authoritarians,so I’m with you on the end result, b

          • webb wesley

            Your right, religion does make a difference in whos in office. You think Putin isnt on the right side? He seems to me like hes been warning people forever. Its still shocking they made Obama president, just to create more debt, and complete their agenda. ( and the people wont question it because hes the first African-American president)

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Putin warned Obama in 2010 what his presidency was going to do to America, since then he keeps reminding him of it. That is why Obama hates him so much, he is intimidated by Putin, as he well should be.

          • webb wesley

            Putin also made a statement saying Obama seems like hes purposely ruining the American economy or hes a imbecile that doesnt know what hes doing

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Both are true.

          • Littol Mee

            Wait, Putin from Russia? Where they OPENINGLY express their hate and zero toleration from colored folk and homosexuals? Lol you FOX News people will make anybody seem better than Obama. I mean, has all the comparisons to Hitler end? They shouldn’t, because Obama murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews too! Man, you must really hate the fact there’s a black man in the oval room, huh? I’m not black and in a way its served a purpose these last two presidential elections. Never have I heard more people (whites) make blunt racial comments and spew so much hate for colored people until Obama was sworn in. Funny how scared we get when someone/something were not familiar with is placed in front of us. “A black president? Well I’ll be damned. They don’ put them niggers we see on FOX in the office! Getcha guns, this means war!” Lol the aluminum hats are awerkin’ people..

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Littol you can’t prove your comments so you pull out your race card. You say you aren’t black but you are or married to one. The structure of your comment and language give you away. Yes Putin, he does not tolerate radial Muslims and does not fear or respect them. Quite different from your “great one” who only won his election because of the “white” vote. Otherwise he would be teaching with Ayers on his communistic ideals and how to overthrow the government. A true and patriotic president would have eradicated the Muslim threat instead of trying to protect it. So you believe what you wish, and if you keep thinking this way then you are the problem. I suppose you feel you are right and 80% of the American people are wrong. You have proven that the vast majority of Americans are more intelligent than you and have far more common sense than you.

          • Michael Hain,

            I’m black and it doesn’t matter but Obama hasn’t done nothing but talk bad to us, put us down and use race by letting his henchmen kill and not be held accountable on purpose to start a race war. His ass is a actor and the Rockefellers and Rothschild family have everything to do with his position votes didn’t get him in believe me and I don’t care about color but common sense tells you specially two terms, unrealistic

          • Daryl K. Sauerwald

            Yes Obama is either playing a pre arrange part with the Republicans or he is for real and has no idea what he got himself into.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Do you recall the alternatives Reagan had in his support? Use your head instead of your bigotry.

          • Daryl K. Sauerwald

            Silly answer. Nothing bigoted about how religion is use as a political tool,just a fact. Its the people who want to live in religio-fantacy land who are bigoted. i can see both side a give religion some credit but I can also see the very ugly side as well. I deal in reality.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Bigotry is having an opinion on a subject matter that you do not possess the knowledge needed to form an opinion. That where you stand.

          • Daryl K. Sauerwald

            Are you implying I do not possess the “Knowledge needed” to comment on the subject? Prove your position,what is it that you know which proves I don’t have the “Knowledge needed”. It looks to me that your just making a insulting throw away comment,because frankly thats all you have left. your throwing down a mental version of what the military calls “pray and spray” . In the field of logic there are categorized forms of false logic or “logical fallacies” ,your comment would fit several of those categories. In effect you have no response so you try to insult me saying I don’t qualify to be part of the debate because I lack the knowledge of the subject,well then OOOOOOOOOOOO enlightened one explain what I don’t know that disqualifies my opinion and makes me bigoted.

          • Michael Hain

            Also my opinion on spirit not religion is this. How could the universe happen? Not big bang theory because nothing can’t come from nothing so a creator of unimaginable power had to of created the universe because nothing can’t come from nothing.

          • Daryl K. Sauerwald

            You have no proof that nothing can come from nothing. If that is so then their is no god so no creation;on the other hand if god can come from nothing then so can something with a god intervening. God is not the point god or no god ;the point is that the world and the universe did not come into existence the way the bible say it did,even if god had something to do with it. The religious think the creationism or intelligent design are something they own and they don’t. Even if God exist and was involved in creation .It dose not prove God did it the way anyone religion say it happened. Creationism is not new its just a rehash of and idea put forth at least a hundred years ago by some evolutionist but they did’t bring up the matter to satisfy christians. I personally do not believe in that nothing exist I believe that there is always matter and force they have always existed; existence is eternal.

          • Daryl K. Sauerwald

            he was president of the USA all he had to do was say your evil and we don’t like you. Conservative talk all their fake ass tough moralistic talk but when it come right down to it they sell out.

          • Michael Hain

            True but religion and money has everything to do with it that’s how they make the scapegoat through religion. And also money think about it when you live in poverty you always focus on poverty and getting out of poverty so your always occupied and never focus on what is really going on.

          • webb wesley

            Did you watch thrive on youtube? it exposes everything. This needs to end

          • Ben R Sizemore

            He is more honorable than our POTUS

    • Michael Hain

      Exactly your right! I’m all in brother!

  • America_Woman

    Finally, a politician with a brain.

    • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

      QUESTION…..If communist International Bankers show up with 40 grand per head to every officer who signs on with them…….how effective do you think this law will be ?
      BEWARE of the SNAKES among US !

      • webb wesley

        So whats a better solution if these scums can be bought off. How are we going to end the fed and all the corruption they caused over the decades. I dont know about all of you but I am sick and tired of the governments crap we arent slaves to them

        • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

          The better solution was THIS LAW……just not with a monetary fine…..but JAIL TIME……something with TEETH ! Not a BS job that can be circumvented.

      • Greg

        The state gov doesn’t have to honor prosecution at the street level, and they can fire officers who take bribes.

        • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

          I don’t think you understand exactly how deep and insidious the problem is……Many at the top are Communists man. The people you are depending on to “fire” them are the ones in collusion with the Federal Government. And the Federal Government is RUN now by the United nations….OWNED by the United Nations and China. The Council on Foreign Relations are the bastards calling the shots. Check out my video of the COMMUNISTS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT on YouTube

        • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

          Dont thumbs that up….”they dont have to”? that’s the best you have….but they can…there is no restraint…no jail…..it is BS if it has no teeth and can be bought off by International bankers with a printing press….JAIL TIME or its a WASTE OF TIME….and gives a false sense of security.

  • fred

    Can anyone tell me if because as a felon I can only, but still hunt with black powder. That if the government changed this law it would not apply there? If all your going to do is give me some slick answer, please don’t bother. I paid my debt, and I sure as hell didn’t shoot anyone.

    • JC

      Sadly, I do not believe your gun-ownership status will be changed. I know some people that are “felons – by – circumstance” and did several small things that lead to a felon charge with no actual harm being done and no gun or weapon being used. Until the laws get changed to elaborate more on felon ownership of guns it will remain the same.

      • Pat R

        The thing is this idea of convicted felons owning guns is creating exceptions to the 2nd Amendment. Regardless of a person’s past, he still has a constitutional right to bear arms that can’t be infringed on, and anyone saying that felons should be restricted is using the government to set morals and there is no such enumerated power in the Constitution that allows that to happen.

        • Charlie Benghazi Blake

          I agree with you Pat R…..Lets hope if they did kill someone that they learned their lesson and turned their life around. I agree with the 2nd amendment

        • Ben R Sizemore

          JC this is somewhat true and has been tested. An attorney friend has told me of several cases of possession of a weapon by a felon has been overturned by state courts, and federal district courts based upon the constitution.

      • Ben R Sizemore

        JC thousands of non-violent felons get their rights restored every year. It is almost a guarantee of restoration if you have kept your record clean for 5 years.

    • Roy

      Fred – it depends on what you did, where, and how long its been. Many non violent felonies can be sealed and gun rights restored – you will need an attorney and tell him or her you want both the records sealed and the gun rights restored – the gun rights do not automatically come with the sealing. Many attorneys give a free consult – go check it out and shop around as the prices can vary quite wildly. Hopefully they can give you good news – its worth the money

  • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

    Ok…..has anyone else considered the fact that all that was needed to over ride this provision is 1000dollars per man….and we have been overtaken by international COMMUNIST BANKERS who print money at will and with wanton abandon backed by NOTHING ? If they come in with 20 grand per head…….how effective will this legislation be…..It has NO TEETH!n And if it has no teeth it is smoke and mirrors…..

    • Ben R Sizemore

      You aren’t portraying yourself as intelligent, the scenario has no basis and is nothing but a gloom fantasy of yours. Maybe you would sell yourself out, but most citizens would not.

      • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

        One does not “portray” intelligence, but perhaps an “identity” ….maybe a character. As for “selling myself out”…….could you perhaps explain to me exactly what you mean rather than being vague and cryptic……You didn’t make much sense….How would I be allegedly “selling myself”? I’m all ears….lol

      • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

        Have you thought about how one “portrays intelligence yet”…..LMAO….In trying to sound intelligent, you made yourself look like a world class moron. Stick to the level you are used to….”Don’t try to sound smart”…… facing off with a 175 IQ and doing so will only leave you feeling quite mentally impotent.

      • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

        Still waiting to hear how one is supposed to “portray” intelligence ! lol

      • http://www.ResurrectTheRepublic.com/ Thomas Robert Lacovara-Stewart

        Still waiting on the answer to this ridiculous comment on how I am supposed to portray intellect ? or do you just like to use such words to try and sound intelligent ?

        • Jibby Jabby

          Your name is what you are. Tommy.

  • steveafrikaner

    At last, some states are beginning to pass legislation to stymie federal over reach.

  • rams375

    We all know the solution to anyone violating our 2nd Amendment rights, or we could always roll over and whine with no bite.

  • makeitontop

    Great move but the UN (United Nation) laws would prevail over federal laws wouldnt they?.That deal was already made by Obama and the UN

    • David Sims

      No executive order or act of Congress may override the Constitution. The priority in the federal legal code is: (1) The US Constitution, as amended, (2) Treaties signed and ratified by the United States, (3) Acts of Congress. Of course in practice the federal government routinely does illegal things, citing unconstitutional laws as the justification for doing them. For example, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is used to justify the counterfeiting racket of a gang of Jewish bankers. But the Act is unconstitutional because the Constitution specifically calls for Congress to do what the Federal Reserve is doing, because the Constitution never gave Congress the power to contract out the task of creating money and regulating its value, and because no branch of the US government has any powers not given to it by the US Constitution. Hence every time the Fed loans a dollar into existence, it commits yet another felony, and it has been getting away with it for 100 years.

      • Michael Hain

        That’s exactly right! Bullshit ain’t nothing. Just like when you look at the back of your social security card the government claims ownership of the card which you thought was yours NOT! Your authorised to use it for proof of your identity. That social security card and birth certificate if I’m not mistaken was created same time federal reserve was we pay taxes to government to pay their debts to bank CARTELS. The documents birth certificate and social security card is collateral WE are collateral with out our knowledge and against our will that is against the law too. The district of Columbia is the only part of our country rightfully owned for the loan given because of the great depression these entities that are foreign got their foot in the door which are I’m not sure exactly but British or German and they after time spreaded throughout our country which is and was against the law. Bush’s family is banksters too quite as it’s kept.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0 The_Liberty_Chick

      That statement just really hurts my heart as an American. No matter what the ruling class decides on PAPER WE WILL NOT COMPLY. The UN has NO authority of the USA and it is up to US to maintain our 2nd amendment rights to see that it doesn’t happen. F the UN.

    • Richard Moon

      Constitution > Treaty or Accord. I’ve been attached to the UN (Restore Democracy) and it is an amazingly inept organization. When you consider who they would have to go to rent their troops (Bangladesh, Uganda etc) to “enforce” said agreement, the only threat becomes domestic. In light and precedent of the Legislative or Judicial branch doing nothing, re: the recent Executive Actions, el Jefe could attempt to follow the spirit if not the letter of the ATT.

    • Ben R Sizemore

      Any UN or foreign law cannot trump the US Constitution. Any agreement the “Great One” makes with the UN or Foreign country is not a legal or binding agreement unless cleared by Congress. Any gun control law is not legal or binding unless it is ratified by the states. Any SCOTUS decisions on the constitution is not legal or binding unless an amendment to the US Constitution is agreed through ratification. There is no law or ruling that can trump the constitution.

  • David Sims

    Yes, it is legal. The US Constitution explicitly recognizes that the States may recognize and protect rights not recognized or protected by the US Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments put it most clearly:

    “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The only legal authority that the US government has to meddle with the laws of the states is to guarantee that each of them has a republican form of government. No state may be ruled by a King or a tyrant. Other than that, the states can do whatever they want, assuming that the Constitution, as amended as of this date, remains the supreme law of the land.

    • Joseph

      Nice reply sir. We would welcome you to join us. http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/

    • Daryl K. Sauerwald

      Your forgetting what the power of the Federal government to do is a matter of debate,so its is not always that clear cut,in this case I think it is. The right to arms is tied directly to the militia,making the people in effect the militia,this action is Idaho’s regulation of its militia,which is has a right to do.the only reason i could see for legal interdiction by the Fed would be a violation of rights by the state,like saying only white people can have guns,or something to that effect or a concern over public safety,state laws must be a reflection of a “well regulated militia” as opposed to an ill regulated militia.

      • Ben R Sizemore

        How can the rights of the Feds be debatable when those rights are written in black and parchment in English? As backup there are the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation and the writings of the founders. Common sense tells us the Feds don’t have a leg to stand on.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0 The_Liberty_Chick

    It’s a good start but it is not going to be enough.

    • Ben R Sizemore

      The Feds cannot force a state to obey Fed law, only constitutional law, which the feds do not abide by nor enforce.

  • Daryl K. Sauerwald

    Well, I disagree that nullifying Fed. law is always legal,but I think there is justification in this case.

    • Ben R Sizemore

      It does not nullify the law, it just prevents the enforcement of the federal law.

  • Daryl K. Sauerwald

    it should be noted that the constitution of idaho dose not allow any armed force including police,to operate with in the state without the consent of the state. Something most idahoans need to know.

  • Guest

    this is fake .. bills are posted as SB or HB before the numbers because that shows where the bill originated Senate Bill or House Bill. It wouldn’t just be S2342423 or whatever is written up there.

  • June Goetz Lynne

    here’s your sign … it says ‘we be dumb asses’ … apparently (if this is true) they forgot to watch the elections last November since this was an ’emergency’ … they are apparently passing laws like it is 2008 or 2012 … yes they get the dumb ass of the month award … and the month is still young … biting my fingernails to see if they will get beat out!!!!!!!

    • Andrew Ryan Reeves

      This is from March 22nd, 2014. Before the election my friend.

      • June Goetz Lynne

        When did this President want to ban ALL guns???

    • Ben R Sizemore

      June, are you afraid of the word “EMERGENCY”? This prevents the Feds from devising a scam to stop it. Besides, what did it cost you, other than your pride seeing the “great one” suffering another defeat in his anti-gun agenda. Maybe he can send Holder to Mexico again with some more guns to use in the US for mass killings. Won’t be the first time.

      • June Goetz Lynne

        I would similar suggest that YOUR great one send MORE guns to IRAN!

  • Peggy Roberts Way

    Hey……if obamass can do such things without congress approval then so can governors !

    • June Goetz Lynne

      The question is WHY? Where is the EMERGENCY??? Do they feel the new congress is going to take guns away?? really, didn’t ANYONE watch the election results in November??????

      • Karl Pedersen

        BOISE, March 21, 2014

        • June Goetz Lynne

          At what point in this presidency were the words used by him to ban ALL guns???

          • Ben R Sizemore

            That is not the point, under the 2nd amendment no, zero, guns can be banned!!!!

          • June Goetz Lynne

            well your already wrong … I can’t own a submachine gun … I can’t own chemical weapons … hell there are a great many ARMS that I or you can’t own in regards to a WELL ARMED MILITIA … are you part of a militia or are you and a couple buddies your militia?

          • Ben R Sizemore

            June, you misunderstood what I was saying. The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from banning any weapons, but the gov’t is in violation of the amendment. We as Americans have to challenge there not authority the same as the people did in Washington State. No one can change the constitution except the people. As far as the militia, all Americans are the militia. Being the militia, we are required to provide our own weapons. The emergency bill was prior to the elections, I think it was in March of ’14.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            now Ben you are simply making up your own rules … you know as well as I do that when the 2nd was added that not ALL Americans were considered ‘supposed American enough to be a part of a militia’.. hell, even black Americans weren’t Americans, even those BORN in this country were slaves … WHERE were THEIR guns, why couldn’t they be in a militia??? … honestly, unless you were a land owner you were nothing, you couldn’t even vote … so this does not bode true at all!

          • Ben R Sizemore

            June you answered your own questions. I had said Americans, I said nothing about slaves. There were very few black Americans in the Colonies in those days. Who do you think did the fighting during the battles for independence? Who protected the towns and villages while the army were engaging the British in distant states? The militia! Study your colonial history. Learn about the reasons for each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            Even white males who did not own land had fewer rights than the influential … our country was founded on wealth and continues in that direction … women … yes where were their rights during all this … yes indeed they had none, they were property in many ways as well, as were children .. the whole BS of women and children technically not being property is a pretty new thing in this country …. and there were black people in this country … but how about Native Americans? what the hell happened to their rights? Start reading about the US/Dakota War of 1862 … perhaps you will find out a few things! let me know when your done reading and please, don’t just skim this over, look at the treaties and please continue understand this entire War that even though it lasted only 6 weeks was closer to a century long!

          • Ben R Sizemore

            What says you can’t own a machine gun?

          • MontieR

            First off june do a little research. Fully automatic machine guns are NOT illegal to own by private citizens. Go to the BATF site and educate yourself. As to your militia statement yes and so is ANY citizen of the United States that can and will own a weapon of war. Again read the constitution it clearly explains who and what the militia are and the militia IS legal in ALL 50 states.

          • Micheal Martin

            The fact that he signed the UN Guns Treaty should be your first clue

          • Bill Richardson

            Those who want to ban guns do not routinely say they want to ban guns… Although many of them have been caught stating their true intentions over the years (usually when they think they are among friends). They hide behind false names and consistently lie about their intentions. They know that the total ban they want (badly) cannot happen through a democratic process… They know that deceit and deception are required. They will keep chipping away at gun rights through so-called “common sense” changes that never address the problem of lunatics and criminals, until there are no rights left.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            so pray tell do you fight for ALL rights under the constitution or just those you feel are important to you??

          • Bill Richardson

            Well, that’s pretty random, since I gave no indication that I would not. Am I overlooking some right that is important to you? The issue of the 2nd Amendment just happens to be in the forefront at this time, due to short-sighted people who don’t realize it’s importance.

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Bill I have preached til I am blue in the face on the subject of the 2nd amendment. I cannot get anyone to understand that number one, it has not been changed, it still reads the same way it did when originally written. Number two, there has been no law trumping this amendment as it is written, there has not been any law written forbidding owning machine guns or any other arms we may desire. There is no law requiring you to go through a background check. Any opinion the congress, the president, the SCOTUS has does not trump the 2nd amendment. Why is it that people cannot see this? Many people in, of all states, Washington stood up to the state law. Why can’t we do that with the Feds. I will tell you why, they are not intelligent enough to understand the constitution and the people’s rights. They want someone else to do it, they are afraid they might get arrested, or some other perceived dangers. Had Japan waited 73 years they could have just walked in and taken over, no resistance. I cannot seem to get anyone excited about this. I tried it with the prayer in school issue and got less than 100, luckily I was contacted by the ACLJ who informed me they were taking up the issue with about 2M signatures. But I haven’t really got a satisfactory response on the 2nd amendment issue. So it isn’t that we have lost any rights to the constitution, it is just that we have allowed the government to give us the perceptions of losing those rights. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

          • Bill Richardson

            Obviously, those who lack logic and sound thinking will continue to propose that gun rights be impeded… They really don’t care about the Constitution or the law or a persons right/need to be able to protect their families against criminal violence or anything other than their simple-minded fantasy of how they think things should be… They clearly think that if they say unicorns exist and that criminals will not have guns because they make it illegal (again), that these things will happen.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            I know a lot of people who want a discussion on guns … I personally don’t know any that want a ban … hell we have guns in our house … but I still want the discussion … but bring up that word and all hell breaks loose!

          • Bill Richardson

            The reason for the defensiveness on this issue is that since finding how little support there is in this country for the total ban they want, the anti-gun people have relied on deceit to promote their agenda. Pro-gun people have compromised in the past, only to find the same activists going back for more. So now you have pro-gun people who are done compromising. The other issue is the lack of solutions offered by the anti-gunners… They are the same crowd who cry for us to be soft on criminals (because they had such a rough life) and their solutions to gun violence have zero effect on criminals… They only affect the gun collectors/hobbyists/target shooters and those who want to protect their families and themselves. I have yet to see a logical argument for the types of gun control currently being proposed. They tell us, who needs an assault rifle, when they don’t know anything about guns to start with. They tell us when confronted by a criminal, we are safer without a gun or we would have no chance… What chance do you have against an armed criminal without a gun??? Many robberies where the victims complied, have ended in homicide… How is that a better option than having a chance to defend yourself? Home invasions happen… How are you safer without a gun if it happens to you? Why is the sport of target shooting less a sport/hobby because crazy people and criminals abuse guns. When the issue of cars posing deadly risks every day is raised, it is poo-pooed by the anti-gunners… It is only an illegitimate argument because they want their cars and don’t care how many times they are abused. Fact is, cars are not a requirement… Private ownership of cars could be eliminated tomorrow with an improved public transportation system, but anti-gunners like their cars and they like THAT freedom… You can’t pick and choose your freedoms based on your personal situation and expect to be treated seriously by people who value all freedom.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            Here’s my problem … and btw, I appreciate a conversation with you on this (THANK YOU) … for the handful that want a ban (and yes there are some) you want to say all dems or liberals want this … I would never presume that what one republican or conservative says means that is what every republican or conservative believes … surely you can’t decide that a very very very few speak for all? As I said, I would never presume that what my Republican neighbors (or brother lol) rambles on about is something you or heck most republicans would believe in … so a conversation is just that … we have simple 22’s and a few shot guns in our home for hunting … my husband has his 22 revolver (yeah he’s old school) just to target shoot … my daughter who is THE MOST LIBERAL person i will ever met is looking at buying a gun for herself … now if she, as a dyed in the wool liberal, will buy a gun well then what is left to say! I think there are tons of loop holes that need to be closed down … people can sell a gun to anyone who has the $$ … doesn’t that scare you just a bit? I can walk into any gun show in my state and as long as I have the $$ I can buy the gun and walk out the door with it … doesn’t matter if I know how to use it (which btw I don’t shoot, I’m really bad at it) … are we no longer afraid of terrorists (both domestic and foreign) getting a hold of lots of weaponry with no background checks? it scares the heebies out of me anyway!

          • Bill Richardson

            If I thought that the proposals being put forth would keep bad guys from getting guns, despite my concerns about anti-gunners pushing their agenda in stepping stone fashion, I’d have to give it greater consideration. I enjoy shooting and collecting and anyone I’ve taken out shooting has enjoyed it as well. I see guns as tools, just like cars… The misuse of either should be punished… People should be held accountable for their actions, but honest citizens should not be inconvenienced when these laws do nothing to stop or even slow down criminals. The last gun I bought took me three weeks and three trips to the gun dealer to obtain… First shipping, then waiting period, then being able to get to the gun dealer when he is open and I am also off work, then returning twice because the background check system was backlogged (Not good for global warming lol). Gun laws affect only the honest people. I am a retired police officer, now working armed security for the government (with the background checks/security clearances required)… I have a license required to work security in my state, a state license to carry a firearm on the job, a firearms owners ID card, a state issued retired LEO concealed carry permit valid in all states that requires me to qualify each year, no criminal record, and I already own firearms, but I still have a waiting period and background check to buy a firearm… Really? That is what you get when you allow illogical liberals to govern. The fact that there are abuses, simply does not justify the level of regulation employed. They need to start directing their resources at the abusers and stop making it a political agenda item. How about actually prosecuting violators, instead of just passing laws that only the honest will follow?

          • juswonderin

            Great post, Bill!! However, we our Supreme Court is NOT as patriotic for this country & some on the bench are wanting to use international law instead of our own Constitution. THAT’S what I’m more afraid of than the gun controllers!!!!

          • juswonderin

            June, the terrorists are already here & have been for years. Gun control or not, THEY ALWAYS GET WEAPONS, ESPECIALLY HEAVY WEAPONS & I don’t think our sport or other gun can hold a candle to those missiles that are being fired into Israel every day. I live in a senior complex & I don’t need a gun & I can’t have one on the property in which I live. However, if I could ever move out of this place, I certainly would consider getting a gun for my own protection.

          • MontieR

            No there are not “tons of loopholes”. The constitution is VERY clear on exactly what the government can and can’t do. It is not a loophole when people are allowed to buy and sell private property. It is called freedom.
            Yes you can go to a gun show and find a private citizen selling a firearm and purchase it legally (without the all seeing government checking your past). But think about this if we allow the government to regulate this (in DIRECT defiance to the bill of rights), what is next (and bet your bottom dollar there WILL be a next). How about books do you want to have to register to purchase books.
            With registration you will be limited to government approved books.
            The idea is ludicrous. You do not have the right to “feel” safe. Your right to BE safe and it is YOUR personal responsibility and is affirmed in “shall not be infringed”. The tons of loopholes I see are the ones used by the government to weasel around the restrictions on it spelled out in the constitution. Have you read the constitution if you have try the federalist papers they clearly explain exactly how and why they worded the constitution the way they did.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            I am guessing you are very much against car registrations or perhaps you either don’t own a car, or you don’t register one … perhaps you are against automobile insurance and don’t have that either … or a license plate … since you want to think we are infringing on freedoms we shouldn’t need to register anything …

          • William Sullivan

            Asleep at the wheel are ya?

          • Ben R Sizemore

            Had you researched Obama’s qualifications prior to you voting for him you would have found multiple instances in letters he wrote, papers he wrote, meetings he had with Bill Ayers, that he was totally anti-gun. In fact a paper he wrote in college outline the ideals of Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers in the confiscation of America, one of his more famous papers accepted by the socialist and communist organizations in America. The second method on his list was to disarm the citizens, and arm the followers. All his writings, records, etc, as you know have been sealed. I started researching him in Dec 2006 when it was known he was thinking of running for President. I profiled him based on his name, and the evidence at that time of him being foreign born. You voted for him because you believed his lying rhetoric. So you continue worshiping him and I am sure he will reward you with his used underwear.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            are you forgetting the Brady Bill?? You do understand that President Reagan SIGNED that bill into law … right?? And I am just betting that you WORSHIP Mr. Reagan. And speaking of the 2nd Amendment .. WHEN did a well armed militia end up being ever Sam, Dick and Harry carrying whatever gun they want in almost any place they want become what this is about??? And if you are calling this President a Muslim a Communist or a Socialist … HE REALLY sucks at all of them … that damn socialist has really helped Wall Street out BIG time!

          • Ben R Sizemore

            June your knowledge is very limited. Yes Wall Street is moving right along with newly printed money backed up by $18T debt as collateral. You think the newly

          • Ben R Sizemore

            The Brady Bill was signed into law, not constitutional law, it became a Federal Code. Federal Code does not trump constitutional law. The liberals think it does because they hate the constitution. But it has been proven time and again it doesn’t.
            Yeah your “Great One” sucks at everything. Every single policy of his have failed. Early withdrawal from the ME resulted in 5000 US casualties which he calls collateral damage, the families call it murder. He was advised by everyone not to do it, those military people were fired. He thinks he knows more about military operation and tactics than they do. You know I am not going to waste my time on this crap. No matter how much he has done (with facts to back it up) you will just deny it, call me a racist, etc. if you do not have the intelligence and common sense to see what is happening around you nothing I say will help you. You don’t know enough about the constitution or our history to qualify for a proper debate. I spent several years teaching this to college students dumbed down by the liberal public school system. I am not going to try and educate someone who has been dumbed down by community organizer.

          • June Goetz Lynne

            Interesting … now you are presuming I am calling your a racist … if you have taught as you say then you perhaps understand what it takes to get a constitutional amendment?? really … hell I’m still waiting on one that has been ongoing for decades now! and btw … you say the President sucks at everything … really? At what point have you denied all of the facts?? job creation, lower unemployment, wall street and I could go on and on and on … oh wait, you must believe that all of these successes just happened since the republicans won congress last November … no matter what I say you will continue to have your opinions and at the end of the day you have opinions where as I can show you facts on unemployment, job creation, etc. … nice chat with you, but now I really do need to move on to other interesting conversations … just remember opinion and fact are 2 different things (and LMAO if this President had been a Republican you would be singing the praises to no ends of the earth!)

          • Chuck Hawkes

            Ben first off we should have never been in any wars except Afgan so those casualties are the result of Bush Jr. By not pulling those people out would have cost the American plublic even more on borrowed money since Bush never paid for his war but I still seem to be paying for it and now we are at least not making new except the fact the new congress wants war and how do they plan on paying for it from you and me and you will have no choice, they already want war with Russia, Syria and Iran were is this money going to come from. Take our land hock it like they want to take other people’s land for Key Stone Pipeline and since the price of oil has come down so much they our USA companies stop pumping and lay people off to keep that high profit margin for the stock holder instead of keeping the cheap gas and forcing Russia, Syria, and Irans hands since there ecominy is based on oil as a export and their funds are shrinking.

          • Chuck Hawkes

            wow this is deep, I am glad I don’t and rest of America doesn’t judge everybody like you do other wise we would have no goverment.

      • Ben R Sizemore

        Why is it a concern that it is an emergency or not. The fact is it is always important to stay a step ahead of the “Great One”, Do everybody understand that the militia are civilians who are required to furnish their own firearms?

      • linda

        Maybe it has something to do with the UN gun treaty obozo signed and went into affect on 12/24/14?? Just a thought

    • James

      It was approved by the Idaho State House, and Senate. And it is within the legal bounds of the state to do. So that is 100% better then Obamass.

  • Lisa Daniel

    As much as I HATE this man, this is the right thing to do! This protect the United States Constitution which has been and is being trampled on!!!

  • Ron Nielsen

    Er Lisa there is a slight problem with these kinds of assertions, like the one your making here. If I may point something out? It’s a well settled matter of Constitutional Law
    that Federal intervention on certain rights for the good of the whole is considered Constitutional. This type of Constitutional interpretation came as early as 1833 or so (Barron v Mayor of Baltimore) and culminated after the Adamson v California case in 1947 (called selective incorporation). So in essence they (Federal Government) ARE protecting the Constitution.

    Darrel K Sauerwald; you said, “Your
    forgetting what the power of the Federal government to do is a matter of debate,so its is not always that clear cut,in this case I think it is. The right to arms is tied directly to the militia,making the people in effect the militia,this action is Idaho’s regulation of its
    militia,which is has a right to do.the only reason i could see for legal interdiction by the Fed would be a violation of rights by the state,like saying only white people can have guns,or something to that effect or a concern over public safety,state laws must be a
    reflection of a “well regulated militia” as opposed to an ill regulated militia”.

    If I may? You must be forgetting DC v Heller 2007. In this decision the court conceded that the right was a mainstay of many state Constitution’s PRIOR to it’s addition as an
    Amendment and that certainly militia service was A purpose but since the militia comprised the civilian and not professional soldiers the court did not feel it could deprive individual private ownership of firearms by making membership in the militia an exclusive and singular category.

    The court did not need to alter any precedent to allow this as it’s second Amendment stance has always been the same going back to even Presser and Cruikshank. I’d advise
    anyone here to read the Heller, Presser, and Cruikshank decisions to sort out the courts Constitutional interpretation of the second Amendment.

    Have a nice day :)

    • Rick Mage

      Look, the U.S. Constitution is really easy to understand. The federal government only has the authority listed in the Enumerated Powers section of the U.S. Constitution and the authority to enforce the post Civil War human rights amendments. That is it. Anything else outside the Enumerated Power section of the U.S. Constitution is forbidding to the feds. Now, look in the Enumerated Powers section of the U.S. Constitution, and tell me where it says that Congress or Obama can pass gun laws and gun regulations or enforce gun laws and regulations. Federal law trumps state law? Federal law only trumps state laws if that law has anything to do with the enumerated powers of the federal government or if that law has anything to do with enforcing the post Civil War human rights amendments. That is it. If the feds tries to get involved with this case in Idaho, Idaho has the lawful authority to tell the feds to go piss off. You use court cases to prove your point. Supreme Court justices have been some of the biggest violators of the U.S. Constitution. I wouldn’t trust those criminals to care for my worst enemy. I, myself, use our founding fathers, the Federalist Papers, and the U.S. Constitution. they all trump the Supreme Court justices. You don’t have to be a layer to know the Constitution, you just have to be able to read. In fact, I dare say that kids in grammar school, back in the early 1800s understood the U.S. Constitution better than today’s criminal Supreme Court justices. 😉 Oh, and if you are going to say that the Necessary & Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause gives our federal government the authority to pass any law that they want to, I am going to make you look really silly. :)

      • Woody

        Go to law school then try again.

        • MontieR

          Why the constitution is NOT taught in law school.

    • Zanandy

      Vuck the federal government

  • sky yellow – sun blue

    these kind of stunts never hold up in the end.

    • Ben R Sizemore

      Read your history and you will see they do.

      • Chuck Hawkes

        or they bring in the military

    • Bill Richardson

      Sometimes, regardless of whether such an act will hold up to the rule of law, you do it to make a statement… To make it clear that you stand against something. In other cases, the mere protest, if others join in, signals the federal bully to back off.

    • lcutler75

      oh?
      do tell us, leg yello, wut other nullifying st8 gun laws hav nevva held up?
      jus askin 4a lone xample, chief

      • MontieR

        Try a remedial english composition class. Wow public education shure has turned out some einsteins.

        • lcutler75

          try joinin the 21st cntry..its calld txtng, grammar cop
          wow its sad that it escapes u, copernicus

    • Ray Sykes

      I agree, Obama’s unconstitutional actions are shortly to be history.

      • Jasondaze

        Learn how to spell you retarded a-hole.

        • Ray Sykes

          Clearly your education matches your classiness. Why don’t you tell us how you really feel? As far as what I wrote it is correctly stated and spelt.

          • Chuck Hawkes

            people change their names his mother was American so no matter what that makes him a US citizen period, no matter what his name is or where he went to school.

    • ArmedPatriot

      Sure they will hold up

      • Chuck Hawkes

        LOL

  • The Realist

    We are sovereign states and there is still no clause of the constitution that provides a mechanism by which our rights can be infringed upon by an out of control federal government. They can go piss up a rope as far as I’m concerned!

    • Woody

      Actually the Supremacy Clause pretty much does exactly that. It says that where State and Federal law conflict, federal law is supreme. Hence these sorts of stunts are exactly that — BS shows for the gullible.

      • Shane

        Supreme court can try to change constitutional law all day long. State rights have always federal laws unless that particular state has willingly given up its states rights AND even then rights can ALWAYS be reclaimed. So if Idaho did give up its rights it’s obviously reclaiming them!

        • Chuck Hawkes

          Not really, you might need to look at some laws from the federal goverment that has trumpted state laws lots out there.

      • MontieR

        Accept when that federal law violates the constitution.

  • Paceride

    How exactly that work? State governor nullifies FEDERAL law?

    • ToUtahNow

      It will work just like all of the marijuana laws

    • ArmedPatriot

      Who will the feds push around when 90% of the USA has told them to **** off ?

    • Elmer Jorgensen

      I believe the constitution provides for state’s rights. And the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and so this state law is not in violation of the Constitution.

  • apeman2502

    Good work Idaho. This makes up for your falling for Nixon and George Bush unless you are going to turn against your fellow Americans and join the Bush criminal cabal against us.

  • ExtremeModerate12

    Governor Otter, just when I thought you couldn’t get any dumber, you go and do something like this… AND TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!!! Well played sir.

  • steve cardoza

    Well’ we have great Governor’ if we can’t protect ourselves , then who will?
    with the emerging threat of terrorist, let alone all the crazies we already have in our country and world, ask yourself one very important question,, would you bring a knife to gun fight?

  • Wolf Wylde

    yeah no kidding . . . first major thing hes done right since I moved home . . . bravo

  • Gary

    About damn time!

  • fastforward

    Did anyone even read the article?? This was signed a year ago! Pay attention dipshits!

    • Dave Kirsten

      Kiss my ass

    • chuck connors

      It’s called “forsight” fast you dipshit! The leaders of Idaho saw the treasonous acts of the left coming and acted to stop it.

  • James Allen Wyatt

    WE AS A NATION, AS A PEOPLE WHO OCCUPIED PLANET EARTH AND ESPECIALLY THOSE AMONG US WHO ARE FELLOW CHRISTIANS – the Real Christians as opposed to christians-in-name only, ARE UNDER CONSTANT SIEGE; OUR COLLECTIVE ENEMIES NOT ONLY AT OUR GATES BUT ARE NOW CONTINUALLY ENGAGED IN ‘KICKING IN OUR DOORS’.

    We therefore either are going to have to choose to EITHER WAKE UP TO THIS ‘Clear and Present Danger or . . like the Jewish people of Hitler’s Nazi Germany, allow ourselves to be LED TO THE SLAUGHTER.

    In Brief, It is Either Stand Up or ‘shut up and surrender’; that our ‘clear as crystal’ choices: these the only TWO!

    It therefore is a simple matter of out continuing to Remind ourselves of the Fact that it is EITHER A CASE OF US HANGING TOGETHER . . . or . . . we will be hanged . . . separately.

    (Based on the number of hunting license issued, we who are in just that group alone constitute the largest standing army on this planet) . . . and add to that number the number of those who also own and know how to use firearms, all that is needed is for us to UNITE IN THE EFFORT TO SET OUR NATION FREE OF ROGUES WHO SEEK TO DESTROY OUR NATION AND THUS THE FREEDOM AND LIBERTY OF EACH OF US . . . so, it again is the simple matter of our standing together, consolidating our continuous constant totally focused efforts to preserve and protect our Jehovah God provided Christian nation, it’s/our Constitution and Bill of Rights and THE HOLY BIBLE’S Principles which governed us from the very beginning and with governs us now, whether that is accepted or rejected as FACT; IT STILL IS THE UNDISPUTED IRREFUTABLE FACT.

  • Chuck Hawkes

    makes me wonder how they can nullify any federal law if that was the case you would still have slaves and no interrasial marrages and women would still be property. People talking about people with hunting linces that end up killing other people cause they don’t know how to handle a gun properly. We have had children killed in Idaho because people not teaching their kids and not watching them. Makes me wonder if you have enough common sence people left in the state to do the state good.

    • MontieR

      First you need to read the constitution. The reason states can nullify a federal law is that “gun control” violates the constitution as did slavery and a few others. The entirety of the allowable things the federal government is responsible for are CLEARLY stated in article one section eight of the constitution. ANYTHING outside those enumerated directives is NOT legal or allowed. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the constitution. It was written to limit government NOT the states or the people.

      • David Saint

        first of all, you need to show me where in the Constitution it says you have the right to keep and bear ammo?
        Second of all, the whole purpose of the Supremacy Clause was for instances such as this. Brown V Board of Ed is a perfect example.
        Edgar v MITE Corp states ” In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible ”

        you seem to misunderstand the concept of research, and that your interpretations mean squat versus case law.

        • Bill Richardson

          what it boils down to is that the governor is letting Idaho law enforcement officers know that they will not be required to enforce federal laws… Many other states have taken similar stances on immigration laws, but in a way that liberals approve of, so no problem, right? In Cook County, IL, their Executive has directed county officers to not cooperate with ICE. Of course, the Federal government can make an issue of it, but since they do very little of their own dirty work, it’s unlikely that they will be able to force the state to back down any time soon. And for someone who wants us to think he knows what he is talking about, your statement on ammo not being protected is very, very simplistic and would clearly not hold up under legal scrutiny… Check the latest Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment… They have affirmed that the Second Amendment creates an individual right to self defense while away from the home… Since arms are the tool, banning all ammunition would be infringement.

          • David Saint

            and last i checked, Federal law trumps state law. So, the first time some ignoramus tries to invoke that guess what happens? ID loses all its federal funding until it decides to comply. lol I thought we went over this during the civil war, guess some people need a reminder

          • Bill Richardson

            Funny, because I was a federal police officer and most of the people my agency locked up, were actually picked up by the locals and turned over to us… So if the governor of a state says don’t enforce federal laws, most won’t enforce them or cooperate with federal agents/officers. This already happens in many local jurisdictions/counties… Where local law enforcement just says, we aren’t going to use our resources to enforce federal laws… The federal govt can still do it on their own… But without local help – Not much will happen.

          • Bill Richardson

            The federal government does very little on their own when it comes to law enforcement… The locals pick up most of the bad guys and turn them over to the feds. As in prior cases where a county or other government entity says they will not cooperate with the federal government or enforce federal laws, it just doesn’t get done unless the feds do it themselves.

  • Qdog

    Federal law>State law. Nuff said

  • David Saint

    Edgar v MITE Corp states ” In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible ” So, if you enjoy paying to litigate that which already has been, be my guest. You could save yourself some money though and put a tail in your shorts, and chase it around in circles for a few days.

  • YoOleMe

    GREAT, as this IS!!! … IT’S ONLY “HALF-A-LOAF”, THE OTHER HALF BEING CONTAINED WITHIN ALL OF THAT CRITERIA, SO SUCCINCTLY DELINEATED IN THIS TWO-PART ARTICLE http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin274.htm by the must astute constitutional law authority I’ve found in 25-years of due diligent research: Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. Ph.D. J.D., REAL American Patriot!!!