GOP Lawmaker In Arizona Wants To Nullify Federal Gun Laws

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

Arizona state Sen. Kelli Ward (R) has sponsored a bill to nullify federal gun laws that the state deems are "in violation of the Second Amendment."

The Arizona Senate's Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility Committee was scheduled to hear the bill on Tuesday morning, The Arizona Republic reported.

Ward's bill would declare invalid and void all federal laws "that violate the Second Amendment's true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers of the United States Constitution," according to the paper.

The legislation would nullify any federal firearms law "that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state," the Republic reported.

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kelli-ward-arizona-federal-gun-nullification

[hack89]

1. What a moron. nt

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

2. A bill to override the constitution? What a nitwit!

How do these people even get elected?

[atreides1]

3. How do they get elected?

They're the first ones that learn to walk without dragging their knuckles...

[jen1980]

4. Exactly! He wants to take away our right to safety!

Instead, we have a right to safety and to be safe from those things.

[SpankMe]

5. "Federalism, Mandates and Fiscal Responsibility Committee"

Only a right wing, fuckstick state like Arizona would have a senate committee for "federalism, mandates and fiscal responsibility".

The next big thing will be the "Fetus Defense, Church Protection and (White) Voter Assurance Committee".

[onehandle]

6. Moar gun fascism. nt

[tanyev]

7. OK, muskets for everyone.

[jmowreader]

8. I do not think that means what she thinks it means

Since the Second Amendment starts out with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," this bill seems to suggest that every gun should be sold as a package containing a firearm, a head shaving, and a plane ticket to Fort Benning.

Oh, and Kelli? You're not allowed to nullify laws no matter what Joe Arpaio says.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

11. I read it like this

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.

1) Because of the fact that they need to have a well regulated state militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

2) A right is something you have earned. No one can take it away.

3) But who are the people? "We the People" were a bunch of white rich landowners and slave owners (not all of them).

4) I believe this is open to many different interpretations, all with a bit of truth in each.

[jmowreader]

19. We received a letter the boss refused to print, which is almost unheard of

The writer claimed being required to leave his gun in his car when he went into a bank infringed on his Second Amendment rights.

You read correctly: this asshole wanted to let anyone who wanted to carry guns into banks. Which is, to put it mildly, the craziest fucking thing I ever read in my life.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. EVEN if one completely agrees with this nutbag...

Let's say I'm a brain damaged 'bagger who wants guns in every preschool, church, bar, and hospital in the state. Let's also assume my IQ is higher than 27 (temporary suspension of disbelief may be required). Finally, let's say I want my elected representatives to actually do something, as opposed to grandstanding. Does it not stand to reason that in this hypothetical, I'd want State Senator Kelli Ward to SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DO SOMETHING besides making noise about trumping federal law? Such a bill, if signed into law, would be squashed like a bug the instant it hit the federal court system. There's no one who doesn't already understand this. There's no one who doesn't understand that this isn't going to go down the way good Senator Idiot would like. Will this gain her some goodwill in the 'bagger community--are some people so godforsakenly stupid that they think this stands a chance in hell? Is there some chance that dim awareness may begin to dawn on some of her 'bagger constituents that she's just wasting time, money, and attempting to make a firebrand name for herself?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

12. good post!

[Thor_MN]

10. Which Militia does she belong to?

[happyslug]

15. The Reserve Militia??

Last edited Tue Feb 10, 2015, 09:35 PM - Edit history (1)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/312

She does have a dog by the name of Rosie, her date of birth is NOT mentioned on her state web site but that she owns a dog is:

http://www.azleg.gov/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=112&Legislature=51&Session_ID=110

Wikipedia says she was born on January 25, 1969, which makes her 46. Thus she is to old for the Reserve Militia.

Please note the US Supreme Court has NOT accepted the above as the age limits for the Militia. 18 to 45 have been the age limits since 1792, when the Militia Act of 1792 was passed. On the other hand, in the Colonial Period older men had been in the Militia. 45 was picked for that was the age Roman Soldiers ended their Military Service in the Days of the Roman Republic (In the late 1700s to many people were reading to much Roman History, thus the design of the White House and Capitol building, Roman style and Napoleon;'s later decision to call himself Emperor).

As to the act restricting itself to Men. The Militia Act of 1795 (which replaced and corrected some minor errors in the Militia Act of 1792) remained the law till 1903, even though it contain the language "All White Men" instead of "All Men", after 1866 it was clear the term White was no longer valid, but Congress did not change the actual language till 1903.

This leads to another problem. Since at least the Dark Ages, it was the law in Europe AND the Middle East that for every 20 men they was one washer woman (Who tended to be the Sargent's wife, prior to WWI, One Sargent to every 20 men, 20 men to a "Platoon&quot . Her role was more than just to wash clothes, she did a lot of the "House Keeping" for the Platoon including staying with the Platoon's equipment when they went into actual combat (Cooking was to be done by groups of four men, but it was customary for those group to pay the washer woman to do the cooking when she was not detached).

I bring this up for the Militia Act of 1795 did not mention Washer Woman, in fact no act involving any military formation mentioned Washer Woman till they were outlawed in 1883. When washer women are mentioned, it is generally to make sure they marched with the baggage NOT their platoon or company and then when the baggage went on a different route then the troops themselves. What a washer woman received was also set by custom, but like most such custom modified as needed as an army was on the march (i.e. the same food as an enlisted rank, but that varied upon what was available).

I bring this up for she could be a member of the Reserve Militia, for the Federal Act outlawing Washer woman only applied to Federal units NOT the Militia thus the position MAY still exist in regard to the reserve militia (Which are to be formed into Militia Units when they are needed, until then no actual units).

The only "Real " restriction is her age, she is over the 45 year limit set forth in 10 USC 311.

Just a comment that EVERYONE in the US is a member of the Militia. We are NOT members of any particular unit but are members of the Reserve Militia that Congress or the President or Governor or even ourselves if needed can be formed into units for an emergency.

[Thor_MN]

16. Well, other than the name Kelli, generally is a FEMALE name

making your post irrelevant

When was the last time she reported for inspection?

[happyslug]

17. Sorry, I posted by accident before I was finished.

And thus you missed the story about Washer Woman and that the 45 years of age and male restrictions are NOT restrictions recognized by the US Supreme Court, but just followed what Congress did in the 1790s when people were reading to much Roman History.

[Thor_MN]

18. Ah, so you get to pick and chose what language to apply?

Must be nice to interpret things how you want.

So when did she last report?

[LiberalFighter]

13. Wouldn't it then be legal to kill anyone?

As long as it was done with a firearm?

[happyslug]

14. A bill that outlaws what the Constitution already outlaws??????

Even the New Artilce you site points that out:

Specifically, it would declare "invalid and void" any gun law or regulation that violates the Second Amendment.

Of course, if the courts declare that a law or regulation violates the Second Amendment, it's already "invalid and void" -- not only in Arizona but across the nation.

But this is the Arizona Legislature, where logic long ago went AWOL.

So lets pass a bill declaring any law that violate the Bill of Rights is null and void? The Courts do that NOW without such a law. Does not this legislator have something better to do, like learn to read?