Firearm Protection Act for Louisiana?

[Abu Josh]

Football season is over (Saints and Tigers are finished) so it's time to get into gear and contact our State Representatives and suggest that they propose something similar to what they're doing in Wyoming http://k2radio.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-gun-protection-legislation/ to protect our gun rights.

Below I've pasted the letter that I sent to my rep, feel free to use it as a template to contact yours.



As our Predident will most probably engage in more extra-Constitutional behavior and institute bans that will eviscerate the Second Amendment, are there any moves in the State Legislature that would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries?

As several Wyoming lawmakers are proposing legislation designed to protect gun-owners from any potential federal firearm ban, I thought that would be an excellent idea for Louisiana.

Thanks for your time and best regards!

 

[Peacemaker]

Count me in..

 

[gunz4me]

We just had a State version of the 2nd amendment put on the books. I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't that pretty much subject any firearm related charge to the newly passed 2nd amendment requiring the "strict scrutiny" under law?

 

[Dustin-R]

Federal Law trumps State Law.

 

[Blake74u]

We just had a State version of the 2nd amendment put on the books. I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't that pretty much subject any firearm related charge to the newly passed 2nd amendment requiring the "strict scrutiny" under law?

No. You have to talk in "specifics" with the Feds, not broad sweeping generalizations.

http://k2radio.com/wyoming-house-bill-no-hb0104-firearm-protection-act/

I'm in.

 

[Blake74u]

Federal Law trumps State Law.

Incorrect Sir. Not when Federal Law is Unconstitutional.

 

[gunz4me]

No. You have to talk in "specifics" with the Feds, not broad sweeping generalizations.

http://k2radio.com/wyoming-house-bill-no-hb0104-firearm-protection-act/

I'm in.

Oh, I get it... This would be like Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana even though there is a Federal law that says NO.

What ever happened to the good old days when Federal Law could only regulate items as it pertained to interstate commerce and the states had rights? Then again, remember when you could be 18 to drink in Louisiana and the Feds threatened to cut off funding if we didn't close the loopholes? I guess that is one of the ways they overstep the interstate commerce clause. Oh, you don't agree with us? No funding for you!

 

[Sugarbug]

Incorrect Sir. Not when Federal Law is Unconstitutional.

It first has to be deemed unconstitutional.

What Washington and Colorado did legalizing the recreational use of marijuana would not stand against federal law, but they seem to be choosing not to pursue it at this time.

I don't think that would be the case if LA thumbed its nose at another AWB.

 

[Dustin-R]

Incorrect Sir. Not when Federal Law is Unconstitutional.

A lot of people think OBAMACARE is unconstitutional but yet it is still law. The government does not care what we think. They will do what they want.

 

[Blake74u]

It first has to be deemed unconstitutional.

What Washington and Colorado did legalizing the recreational use of marijuana would not stand against federal law, but they seem to be choosing not to pursue it at this time.

I don't think that would be the case if LA thumbed its nose at another AWB.

Then that would make "Federal Law" "Gray Law", don't you think?

 

[Sugarbug]

A lot of people think OBAMACARE is unconstitutional but yet it is still law. The government does not care what we think. They will do what they want.

Unfortunately, that was ruled by SCOTUS to be constitutional. As such, it is no longer up for actual debate.

 

[Sugarbug]

Then that would make "Federal Law" "Gray Law", don't you think?

I'd say it is a double standard. But it won't matter.

 

[JNieman]

Federal Law trumps State Law.

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.

 

[Lafsnguy]

Here's mine also through in a plea for the use of silencers for hunting.



I am writing you to convey my concern and ask for your help in these tumultuous times. First it appears that President Obama and our federal government will institute more bans and limitations on our second amendment rights. As we both know magazine restrictions and banning certain firearms because they look a certain way will do nothing to curb violence. The only people that follow laws are the law abiding citizens. There are millions upon millions of law abiding gun owners that could stand to lose their rights because of a very small minority of sick and twisted individuals. I would like to see a Firearm protection act similar to Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act introduced and passed into law. A firearm protection act would prevent the federal government from meddling in firearms and firearm accessories that are manufactured and sold within state boundaries. Our federal government continues to overstep its boundaries and usurp powers that were delegated to the states. It is time that the states stand up for themselves and their citizens. The second amendment says *Shall not be infringed*.
Secondly, I would like to see a bill introduced to allow hunting with silencers. Last year the use of silencers for the hunting of outlaw quadrupeds (hogs, coyotes etc.) was passed into law. I would like to see this same thing for all legal species. As a hunter I have damaged my ears over the years from not having adequate hearing protection while hunting. The law to allow hunting of coyotes and hogs with silencers was a step in the right direction but we need to go one step further. Silencers are an important safety device and all hunters should have the opportunity should they choose to use one. There is a stringent back ground check as well as paperwork that must be submitted to the ATF in order to obtain a silencer. There is also a 4-6 month wait time for approval from the ATF. Opponents would say that the legal use of suppressors would open the doors for more poaching, but the citizens that are willing to go through the process to get one are upstanding, law abiding citizens and would do little to risk their freedoms. Mississippi, Texas and Arkansas all have laws allowing the use of silencers for hunting all game species. Texas was the most recent to pass the law just this past year. It’s time that Louisiana follow suit. I look forward to hearing your response and thank you for your time.

 

[Blake74u]

I'd say it is a double standard. But it won't matter.

Nonetheless, it would make for something to be read during the trials that occur after we cross the Rubicon, won't it not? -Seeing how that appears to be the path that we are all taking collectively as a Nation.

 

[Peacemaker]

Unfortunately, that was ruled by SCOTUS to be constitutional. As such, it is no longer up for actual debate.

I think Louisiana is one of the states that are refusing to participate in Obamacare..

 

[Sugarbug]

I think Louisiana is one of the states that are refusing to participate in Obamacare..

This is true. But it still doesn't make Obamacare unconstitutional. I have no idea what the administration is going to do about it. There are A LOT of supporters of the bill in LA.

 

[flamatrix99]

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.

That obviously no longer matters... "They" can do whatever they want.. Who is going to stop them?

 

[Kraut]

What ever happened to the good old days when Federal Law could only regulate items as it pertained to interstate commerce and the states had rights? Then again, remember when you could be 18 to drink in Louisiana and the Feds threatened to cut off funding if we didn't close the loopholes? I guess that is one of the ways they overstep the interstate commerce clause. Oh, you don't agree with us? No funding for you!

I've bounced around a few ideas about funding threats in conversations with friends, and I like to consider what could be done in a state where taxes normally paid to the federal government were kept in state instead. Granted, the state would have to be willing to back you against the IRS, and you'd have to give up travelling out of the state, and the state itself would likely end up loosing representation, it would really be a secession in the end. But would the federal government go so far as to do anything other than financial/legal sanctions? Would they send the Army to force state citizens to pay taxes to the federal government rather than the state? I know, way down the rabbit hole, and in our case keeping that much more money in the hands of LA politicians might be more dangerous than we could handle, anyway.

 

[luv1979]

My Representative and Senators have been emailed! Hopefully everyone else will follow suit.