So will these laws make any difference in the long run?

[rady]

I see more than a dozen states have passed these type of laws, which is great, but I wonder how effective they will be in the long run:

Missouri Governor Will Sign Bill Nullifying Federal Gun Laws: Spokeswoman

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[...]

Should be banning ALL federal gun laws, not just "new" ones.

Will it make a difference, probably not...but any step taken to reducing federal power is fine by me

 

[tomcatmv]

Time will tell. Sooner or later there's going to be a law suit by the Feds or someone and it'll likely go all the way to the SCOTUS.

 

[eca7891]

Well.

what it means, getting is from sanctuary cities, is that they will not assist on raids and not allow the atf to house “prisoners “ in their jails.

It will make things more difficult on the atf.

 

[eca7891]

Time will tell. Sooner or later there's going to be a law suit by the Feds or someone and it'll likely go all the way to the SCOTUS.

Fed can not require local gov to incur and bear costs on the fed govs behalf.

That has already been litigated.

 

[Choid]

They don't really have any force of law, and are basically just statements of belief. But, their efficacy is going to depend on how big the ATF footprint is in a given area, and how many fucks the federal government gives.

If it is in Texas, and there are 55 million ATF agents and other willing federal agencies, it probably doesn't matter much as they have the manpower to do what they want. If you are in Alaska and there are 2 ATF agents in the state, the likelihood is that it matters a lot because it is expensive to ship personnel and resources up when you can't get local help.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

No State has stepped up and said they will use State LE to stop the Feds from coming in and arresting your ass; so these laws are a mute point and pandering at best.

Who cares if abc State Police will not arrest you or assist the Feds in arresting you. It is not like they are going to stop the Feds from arresting you.

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[roostercogburn98]

More fed transfer and holding facilities will be built. The big brother org does not care about your best interest or states intentions. Just like jurassic park, “they will find a way.”

 

[TXAZ]

They won’t mean much to individual citizens in these states except for the few that become the test cases.

 

[The D]

Should be banning ALL federal gun laws, not just "new" ones.

Will it make a difference, probably not...but any step taken to reducing federal power is fine by me

Why stop at fed gun laws? Let’s nullify all of the things!

 

[Choid]

Hi,

No State has stepped up and said they will use State LE to stop the Feds from coming in and arresting your ass; so these laws are a mute point and pandering at best.

Who cares if abc State Police will not arrest you or assist the Feds in arresting you. It is not like they are going to stop the Feds from arresting you.

Sincerely,
Theis

Not sure that level of all or nothing gives a very cogent analysis of the situation. Any time any organization is forced to carry out its job with a reduced labor force, they have to make decisions as to how important various objectives are. This shouldn't be any different, as local PD is really just contract labor in this situation.

What would you do, for example, if you had to do all of your metal finishing in house because your finishers didn't want to work for you? You'd probably decide to offer fewer finishes, bring it in house, hire up to do it. But resources are not unlimited, so you'd either need to raise more money or take it from somewhere else. Either choice has consequences.

 

[ken226]

What would you do, for example, if you had to do all of your metal finishing in house because your finishers didn't want to work for you? You'd probably decide to offer fewer finishes, bring it in house, hire up to do it. But resources are not unlimited, so you'd either need to raise more money or take it from somewhere else. Either choice has consequences.

If he could legally print money, and borrow unlimited amounts. Then also use inflation as a tool to diminish the value of the debt, expanding the business becomes more feasible.

I know of one federal immigration agency that used to be 2000 agents. States first decided to stop helping, then later to start impeding. Now it's up to 20,000 agents, with their own dedicated holding facilities and prisoner transport contract companies

It would suck to see that kind of expansion with ATF.

Unintended consequences seem to be the most common kind.

 

[Choid]

If he could legally print money, and borrow unlimited amounts. Then also use inflation as a tool to diminish the value of the debt, expanding the business becomes more feasible.

I know of one federal immigration agency that used to be 2000 agents. States first decided to stop helping, then later to start impeding. Now it's up to 20,000 agents. It would suck to see that kind of expansion with ATF.

Unintended consequences seem to be the most common kind.

Well, if the outcome of these laws is for the ATF to have 10x as many agents, then by definition, the laws have made a difference.

 

[ken226]

Don’t be naive. Nothing like this is unintended. The state govt are just as corrupt as the feds. Look at the election stuff happening now. The same state legislatures that allowed this fuckery to happen in the first place are the ones now trying to get to the bottom of it. Lol. What bullshit.

i agree with @THEIS for once. It’s pandering.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Are you saying that the corrupt conservative states are deliberately passing these -we won't help the ATF- laws, to goad the fed into expanding the ATF? The liberal states just haven't caught on yet?

That's the states goal in these laws? And I'm naive if I don't believe that?

Ok

 

[Choid]

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Are you saying that the corrupt states are deliberately passing these -we won't help the ATF- laws, to goad the fed into expanding the ATF?

That's the states goal in these laws? And I'm naive if I don't believe that?

Ok

Wade is a big believer in the all consequences are intended school of thought.

Despite the light snark above, I don't disagree with your unintended consequence scenario. I don't necessarily think it will happen. One thing we've learned is that it is pretty hard to occupy large tracts of land by force, and many of the nullifying states are just that. It is easier to do it with economic sticks and carrots.

 

[THEIS]

Hi,

Everybody remembers how "fast" this organization was stood up; from thought to enforcement was extremely fast.

Does anyone seriously think that Fed LE entities are going to let people get away with breaking Federal Law (Not getting into discussing whether the laws are Constitutional or not) just because they cannot get assistance from some State LE Agencies??

Sincerely,
Theis

 

[OldSalty2]

like illegal immigration and federal drug laws...?

the word "selective" comes to mind...

 

[Choid]

like illegal immigration and federal drug laws...?

the word "selective" comes to mind...

Which is, of course, the case in everything because of finite resources and other, less economic, reasons. I don't think there is a question that they will have to make choices that they didn't have to make before. What these choices are, I certainly do not know, but given the level of active enforcement of things like magazine bans and AR feature bans, even at levels where it is much easier to do it, I don't really see the ATF bothering to send manpower in to Buttfuck, ID to search for pistol brace offenders.

I don't see any other way to analyze what will happen other than based on what the same group has done in very similar situations.

 

[Choid]

Hi,

Everybody remembers how "fast" this organization was stood up; from thought to enforcement was extremely fast.

View attachment 7645615

Does anyone seriously think that Fed LE entities are going to let people get away with breaking Federal Law (Not getting into discussing whether the laws are Constitutional or not) just because they cannot get assistance from some State LE Agencies??

Sincerely,
Theis

They will decide where they feel the juice is worth the squeeze. A flow chart of DHS isn't an argument against the idea that everybody, even the feds, has to allocate resources.

 

[rady]

Hi,

Everybody remembers how "fast" this organization was stood up; from thought to enforcement was extremely fast.

View attachment 7645615

Does anyone seriously think that Fed LE entities are going to let people get away with breaking Federal Law (Not getting into discussing whether the laws are Constitutional or not) just because they cannot get assistance from some State LE Agencies??

Sincerely,
Theis

Well yes, as in the case of States with legalized marijuana laws, though occasionally, feds will try to push it. One of those politically correct things to allow people to dope themselves to death. So the feds are kinda ok with it. Easy to control those that are high. I've always believed that the drug trade has been in the pockets of politicians for decades, with Uncle Sam being the biggest pusher on the block (next to china, russia). A great way for our hard working boys and girls in the swamp to fund those off shore accounts.

As you and others here have stated, until you get the States to actually say NO to the feds when it comes to these token state laws, there really is no other conclusion to draw other than it being posturing by State politicians.

Rather ironic isn't it, that what is clearly unconstitutional and illegal (Sanctuary cities/ states) is allowed to flourish with no L.E. involvement. Yet that which is clearly constitutional and LEGAL, as in the 1st and 2nd amendments, is constantly under assault by L.E. and the courts..............We'll see who walks the walk as they talk the talk at the State level.

 

[The King]

I firmly believe that some 2A Sherriff showing up with every Deputy that he/she has on tap and having a gunfight with the ATF over the exact meaning of the Constitution will be the beginning end of gun control in the US. Either through action in the courts or something much worse.

These laws clear the way for that to happen, especially the ones that state that the Feds are committing a felony.

"911 - whats your emergency?"

"This is Richard Bag with the ATF. We was arresting someone because they got 5 points on our worksheet. FIVE POINTS! FIVE! And they are resisting. We need backup."

"Yes, sir. So are you armed? And you are arresting someone on a federal firearms charge?"

"Yes, ma'am. There's only 2 of us and we really need help."

"Oh, we'll be right there. Right. There."

I was having this discussion over Colorado's new law that kills state pre-emption on gun control laws and allows municipalities to write whatever they want - it sounds like a great idea for gun control advocates until you realize that you just invited 50,000 municipal entities to participate in a hotly contested Constitutional issue.

And of those 50,000 entities, some of them aren't going to make the best decisions because they are a large group of people and not a monolith.

Similarly, will 9/10ths of the Sheriffs walk away from any confrontation with the ATF? Sure. 1/10th remain, and like most things in the human experience the outcome is governed by the deeds of the few.

 

[BufordTJustice]

Pandering...the federal bureaucrats aren't concerned with taking the freedoms from its subjects that those same subjects freely give up on a daily basis.

 

[Fx51LP308]

Time will tell. Sooner or later there's going to be a law suit by the Feds or someone and it'll likely go all the way to the SCOTUS.

I suspect the Feds will try similar tactics as they did to get all the states to raise the drinking age to 21. They simply threatened to withhold/deny federal highway funds to any state that did not raise the drinking age to 21. All the states, eventually, complied and raised the age. to 21. I think the Feds will do something similar to get the states to comply with Fed. firearms law.

 

[OldSalty2]

Which is, of course, the case in everything because of finite resources and other, less economic, reasons. I don't think there is a question that they will have to make choices that they didn't have to make before. What these choices are, I certainly do not know, but given the level of active enforcement of things like magazine bans and AR feature bans, even at levels where it is much easier to do it, I don't really see the ATF bothering to send manpower in to Buttfuck, ID to search for pistol brace offenders.

I don't see any other way to analyze what will happen other than based on what the same group has done in very similar situations.

the primary is not lack of resource. although i do agree resources are finite, ...of course.

it, to me...appears to be selective with a left leaning bias...again, drugs and immigration.

if anything it should be interesting. precedent is set with "sanctuary states"...and several states legalization of certain drugs.

hell, you can even buy stock in pot companies on the open market...tell me that is a resource issue...lol.

 

[Choid]

the primary is not lack of resource. although i do agree resources are finite, ...of course.

it, to me...appears to be selective with a left leaning bias...again, drugs and immigration.

if anything it should be interesting. precedent is set with "sanctuary states"...and several states legalization of certain drugs.

hell, you can even buy stock in pot companies on the open market...tell me that is a resource issue...lol.

That is what I meant by "other, less economic, reasons." I didn't mean to imply that resources are the only reason for decision making. What I am saying is that resources will likely determine where you will see big operations. I think I used as an example, Texas, which probably has the most ATF employees outside of DC. They have a new suppressor law. i would not be surprised to see the ATF push back on that, both because it is high profile, it is Texas, which is still emblematic of RED STATE, and they have more than enough personnel and material in place. They don't require local LEO help there. I don't think you'd see the same verve in going after pistol braces in Alaska. Resource allocation matters.

 

[rady]

This is more of what I was looking for in a movement. Not the milquetoast approach of career politicians:

2 Nevada Counties Go ‘Constitutional’

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[rady]

This is further evidence what the motivation is for these career politicians. For most, they are just pandering to get another term or to move up on the ladder. This article is about abortion, but it is the 4th paragraph that sums up what they will do when the feds threaten aid going back to the states:

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/missouri-abortion-medicaid-budget/2021/06/26/id/1026540/

They're all a bunch of political whores on the opiate of fed aid money. Why not do the right thing and cut the budget at the state level, showing that you are willing to walk the walk? Love the way these guys talk out of their asses and try to have it both ways.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

Hi,

No State has stepped up and said they will use State LE to stop the Feds from coming in and arresting your ass; so these laws are a mute point and pandering at best.

Who cares if abc State Police will not arrest you or assist the Feds in arresting you. It is not like they are going to stop the Feds from arresting you.

Sincerely,
Theis

As usual, THEIS is spot on.

 

[TurboTrout]

When they task, and I see, local state troops cuff and stuff a ATF or something, I’ll believe it.

Until that point it’s just pandering.

 

[BullGear]

This will prevent people from being charged within the state but the Feds will have jurisdiction over any Federal crimes being committed within the state. I don't know if there's a way the state can stop the Feds from acting on their own laws.

 

[The D]

This will prevent people from being charged within the state but the Feds will have jurisdiction over any Federal crimes being committed within the state. I don't know if there's a way the state can stop the Feds from acting on their own laws.

The same way that states have stopped the federales from enforcing marijuana laws

 

[TurboTrout]

It’s also funny and telling, the fed won’t come in when a state (NY,CA,NY,MA, etc) violates the constitution and attempts to restrict citizens rights.

Basically the fed will only overrule the state when it decreases your power as a citizen, NEVER when it could increase your power.

 

[The D]

It’s also funny and telling, the fed won’t come in when a state (NY,CA,NY,MA, etc) violates the constitution and attempts to restrict citizens rights.

Basically the fed will only overrule the state when it decreases your power as a citizen, NEVER when it could increase your power.

This is how the State works, it shouldn’t surprise anyone

 

[BullGear]

The same way that states have stopped the federales from enforcing marijuana laws

The Feds aren't spending any resources to stop granny from smoking week to help with arthritis or for that matter, little Johnny smoking some week in his parents basement. They still go after trafficking, but the states aren't denying this is still a crime.

 

[TurboTrout]

The Feds aren't spending any resources to stop granny from smoking week to help with arthritis or for that matter, little Johnny smoking some week in his parents basement. They still go after trafficking, but the states aren't denying this is still a crime.

If granny or Johnny publicly show too much “wrong think” sure they will.

I mean it’s better than arresting them for....resisting arrest lol

 

[The D]

The Feds aren't spending any resources to stop granny from smoking week to help with arthritis or for that matter, little Johnny smoking some week in his parents basement. They still go after trafficking, but the states aren't denying this is still a crime.

The feds raided perfectly legal businesses as defined by California several years ago. They still go after large grow operations, which is still bullshit, because that is tax money that they haven’t been able to steal yet