10th Amendment Firearms Freedom Act

[GunnyFreedom]

Seeking help - Here is the link to my rough-draft presentation on the NCFFA HB241

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56613460/

6.2 MB PDF file

It's being heard in committee Wednesday at 10AM, along with 100 or so people who are coming to hear me argue it.

I'm looking for ideas on how to sell this to a bunch of establishmentarian House Reps of Liberal and Moderate and Conservative persuasions.

Talk to me folks, I deliver this thing in 2.5 days

[malkusm]

+rep for all your work....

Anyone have time to read over this?

[malkusm]

No idea how you sell it to liberals....I'll punt that to others.

Conservatives should be able to grasp that (1) the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms; (2) the words "Interstate Commerce" in the Constitution were clearly not intended to apply to things that never crossed from one state to another; therefore (3) this bill protects citizens of North Carolina from usurpations of the 2nd Amendment by the Federal government who would use the aforementioned commerce clause.

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks Malksum,

Fortunately, the presentation is easier to page through than the bill, and provides some argument targeted at conservatives.

It seems to me if they were really conservatives they'd support the bill anyway -- not to mention all the true conservatives are already cosponsors on the bill. So my primary goal is to convince the Establishment that we need a vote on the bill for the following week Wednesday.

"The Establishment" consists mostly of moderate and liberal Republicans and Democrats. They are my target audience, and my goal is to convince them that 1) this is important enough and 2) there is enough public support -- to hold a vote on HB241.

I'm also doing something....different...since the FFA in NC (given Art1§5 of the NC Constitution) is just the equivalent to a nonbinding resolution ANYWAY, my plan is to go on and let the libdems bastardize it enough to move it as a bipartisan effort. It won't make any real difference in statutory authority, and it would actually be pretty historic to see this bill moved by both sides of the aisle.

As it stands, my primary argument goes like this:

Our Founders created this nation through the Constitution with critical checks and balances in place between Federal and State powers. That check and balance was accidentally removed as an unintended consequence of the 17th Amendment, and since that time in 1913, the Federal Government has basically run amok, with duplicative services across the map. NC has plenty of firearms regulations of our own, and intrastate commerce belongs to our State. The idea is to use Tenth Amendment legislation to draw legislative 'borders' around the State of NC that will increase the health and efficiency of BOTH State and Federal government.

[GunnyFreedom]

Bump for ideas to convince the establishmentarian GOP leadership of the NC House, to let this bill come forward for a vote. Had to move heaven and earth just to get a non-voting hearing in subcommittee...

[GunnyFreedom]

I know it's a tough argument to make. But we have a LOT of expertise on this board, along with some former moderates and liberals who can really help formulate this so it touches home with the right people.

[Pericles]

I doubt there is a way to influence liberals - the anti - gun agenda is too strong.

The play should be for the moderates with the ATF gunwalker scandal, there is material to help convince others that there is too much intrusion into areas NC can take care of for itself.

Assuming the GOA and maybe the NRA is on board, it needs the push from our friends.

Personally, I'd like to see the exceptions go away, and negotiate them back in if required.

In addition to Heller and McDonald, the 1934 NFA is being chipped at as well. Two cases of interest:

United States v. Rock Island Armory, Inc., 773 F.Supp. 117 (C.D.Ill. 1991)http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm


and
U.S. v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir. 1992)http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/dalton1.txt

Dalton was retried for the machine gun, and hung jury, was convicted at the retrial of the retrial, and the conviction was reversed on appeal.

Summary - 10 circuit holds that the ATF can not prosecute HFA violations for manufacturing machine guns post May 1986.

Other cases in the 2nd, 8th, and 9th circuits have upheld NFA Hughes amendment on machine guns., and a full panel of the 5th split evenly on the issue when brought up on appeal. The SCOTUS did not take this case in order to resolve the different rulings in the different circuits.

At some point the issue will be revisited.

I bring this up in relation to crew served weapons anthe the state guard or NC equal - at some point the state may wish to arm its own militia, and if the Feds don't let you have the crrew served weapons ...

[Pericles]

Thanks Malksum,

Fortunately, the presentation is easier to page through than the bill, and provides some argument targeted at conservatives.

It seems to me if they were really conservatives they'd support the bill anyway -- not to mention all the true conservatives are already cosponsors on the bill. So my primary goal is to convince the Establishment that we need a vote on the bill for the following week Wednesday.

"The Establishment" consists mostly of moderate and liberal Republicans and Democrats. They are my target audience, and my goal is to convince them that 1) this is important enough and 2) there is enough public support -- to hold a vote on HB241.

I'm also doing something....different...since the FFA in NC (given Art1§5 of the NC Constitution) is just the equivalent to a nonbinding resolution ANYWAY, my plan is to go on and let the libdems bastardize it enough to move it as a bipartisan effort. It won't make any real difference in statutory authority, and it would actually be pretty historic to see this bill moved by both sides of the aisle.

As it stands, my primary argument goes like this:

Our Founders created this nation through the Constitution with critical checks and balances in place between Federal and State powers. That check and balance was accidentally removed as an unintended consequence of the 17th Amendment, and since that time in 1913, the Federal Government has basically run amok, with duplicative services across the map. NC has plenty of firearms regulations of our own, and intrastate commerce belongs to our State. The idea is to use Tenth Amendment legislation to draw legislative 'borders' around the State of NC that will increase the health and efficiency of BOTH State and Federal government.

Here is one argument along those lines - at some point a state FFA is going to reach the SCOTUS, by passing this act, NC makes a statement as to where it stands on the issue of federalism, and the direction the AG should take in terms of which side to be on when the case gets argued before the SCOTUS.

[GunnyFreedom]

Right you are, the reach-out to the liberals is to blunt the objection, mostly, that will allow conservadems (a species which really does exist in NC) to climb on board despite the libdems voting no. The primary effort is moderate Republicans in leadership who do not want this bill voted on, because they do not want to put caucus members on the record on this bill.

Their primary objection is Wickard v. Filburn (1942) in which SCOTUS decreed that the Federal Government could regulate an individual farmer growing wheat for his families personal consumption, since his lack of buying wheat would then affect market pricing. The US Gov required Filburn to burn his crops and pay a fine. The maintenance of this precedent has let to the primary objection on the part of leadership that I need to overcome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

So I also need to have a ready answer to the Wickard v. Filburn question. I know that one of the members will be asking me "What about Wickard v. Filburn where the US Supreme Court held that..."

And I will have to say something a little bit better than simply, "Well, the Supreme Court was wrong."

They were, obviously, but I have to sell that a bit better lol.

As to removing the exceptions....trust me. If I did that in this environment then none of the members would even bother to listen. NC Gov is a Fed-slurping beast, and our better strategy here is to get SOMETHING on the books, no matter how bastardized it may be, and then work on subsequent years to make it stronger.

I don't like it any more than you do, but we do have to work in the environment we are operating in. :(

[GunnyFreedom]

Here is one argument along those lines - at some point a state FFA is going to reach the SCOTUS, by passing this act, NC makes a statement as to where it stands on the issue of federalism, and the direction the AG should take in terms of which side to be on when the case gets argued before the SCOTUS.

This was similar to the HB2 argument to enjoin the AG against Obamacare, but there was not even an attempt to take input from both sides of the aisle so it became very controversial and was vetoed. I agree with the rationale, especially in light of Wickard v. Filburn, and the argument may be "it needs to go back to the Supreme Court to decide the intent of the US Constitution, given that the precedent set by Wickard v. Filburn was in violation of the clear text of the US Constitution, Bill of Rights Article 10."

I need to articulate that in a way that serious moderates can digest it.

[GunnyFreedom]

OK, who here used to be a Republican moderate establishmentarian, who can speak to Wickard v. Filburn? :D :D

[Pericles]

Maybe this: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/intrastate-commerce-act/

At the end of the day, firearms are private property, and do not somehow obtain magical properties just by the fact of their existence.

[GunnyFreedom]

running off to give a speech for Memorial Day :sigh:

[Sola_Fide]

running off to give a speech for Memorial Day :sigh:

Glen, what have you been up to? How is life?

[GunnyFreedom]

Glen, what have you been up to? How is life?

Too busy to stop and think -- I have to go off at warp speed to get ready for this thing at 11:15, and then I come home and have to work on my arguments and presentations for HB241 Firearms Freedom and HB587 NC Job Growth for Wednesday morning.

It's why I was asking for help augmenting my H241 argument. ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

H241 arg work in progress. input "as we go" means less work polishing down the road. NC Firearms Freedom argument targeting moderates and liberals, and particularly moderate Republicans and conservative and moderate Democrats.

Ladies and gentlemen, when I, as a complete newcomer to politics ran for office in 2010, I ran on developing an environment of job growth, and restoring the Constitutional order. That resounded perfectly with voters amongst all parties and in every demographic. The effort before you is one to restore the Constitutional order and to return American government to the people of North Carolina.

The intent of this bill is to legislatively define the statutory borders of our State for the purpose of balancing State and Federal powers, and creating a more healthy and fruitful relationship between our governments that will benefit all parties involved.

Restoring the Constitutional order is restoring Constitutional intent, something which we at the Federal level have abandoned.

At the dawn of the 20th century, there was a great scandal, one in which a candidate for US Senator purchased his Senate seat by buying the votes directly. JHGAT in Montana in 1902 bought 123 votes for $10,000 a head. As a result, and with good reason, the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1913 to prevent such corruption in the future.

As we are all so keenly aware, there are often unintended consequences to the best of intentions that have effects elsewhere which may do more harm than good. Rather than making the Senators answer directly to the State Legislatures, they now answered to the public, which meant that the State governments no longer held a check and balance against Federal powers.

As a direct consequence of the loss of this Constitutional check on Federal power, the size and scope of Washington DC has exploded since 1913 until nearly every single service which may possibly be provided by the State, is duplicated by the Federal Government.

This bill provides a peaceful, political means to legislatively draft the appropriate boundaries between State and Federal government that will act in lieu of the legislative selection of Senators to define a healthy relationship and balance of power.


-- anticipated objections -->

Tenth Amendment definitions of appropriate Constitutional powers, historically referred to as 'Nullification' has had both a celebrated record of success and a short history of misuse. The two most brilliant successes in the history of the use of nullification were the 1795 Virginia and Kentucky resolutions inspired by Thomas Jefferson to abolish the Constitutionally abhorrent "Alien and Sedition Acts," and the brave 1838 act by Wisconsin to nullify the even more horrible "Fugitive Slave Acts," thus helping to ensure the survival of the underground railroad and the path to freedom for American heroes like Frederick Douglass.

... go on to explain the nature of the 1930-1950? threats of nullification and why this is not the same

... "tools in the toolbox" a screwdriver can turn a screw or poke an electric outlet. Said screwdriver can build or repair a medical device to save a thousand lives, or make a bomb to destroy 100. The evil is not in the screwdriver but in the person handling it.

[GunnyFreedom]

-- Anticipated Objections -->

Tenth Amendment definitions of appropriate Constitutional powers, historically referred to as 'Nullification' has had both a celebrated record of success and a short history of misuse. The two most brilliant successes in the history of the use of nullification were the 1795 Virginia and Kentucky resolutions inspired by Thomas Jefferson to abolish the Constitutionally abhorrent "Alien and Sedition Acts," and the brave 1838 act by Wisconsin to nullify the even more horrible "Fugitive Slave Acts," thus helping to ensure the survival of the underground railroad and the path to freedom for American heroes like Frederick Douglass.

... the nature of the 1930-1950? threats of nullification and why this is not the same rebuttal

... "tools in the toolbox" a screwdriver can turn a screw or poke an electric outlet. Said screwdriver can build or repair a medical device to save a thousand lives, or make a bomb to destroy 100. The evil is not in the screwdriver but in the person handling it.

The Article 6 Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution applies specifically to those legislative, executive, and judicial powers which follow from the US Constituion. Those powers which Congress invokes but do not follow from the enumerated powers of the US Constitution, such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1830, are not subject to the Article 6 Supremacy Clause, per the clear text itself.

... Plessy v. Ferguson rebuttal

... Wickard v. Filburn rebuttal

[GunnyFreedom]

If I had a legislative assistant, they could help me fill in the "fudges" in the argument and suggest directions for the rebuttals not yet filled out.

[GunnyFreedom]

Specifically interested to hear from anybody who may once have been a moderate Democrat...

[GunnyFreedom]

Wickard v. Filburn rebuttal



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had imposed limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.



To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

"to regulate comerce among the several states"

to make commerce regular

to remove roadblocks

among the several States

different from within the several states?

[Anti Federalist]

Sadly, Gunny, I've got nothing.

I have to admit, Wickard v. Filburn is a brick wall that I was unfamiliar with. That explains an awful lot.

This is going to require a little research, my first question is this: "If Wickard established the feds authority to regulate, pretty much anything it wants, why was it still required to do an 'end run' around the states WRT national speed limits?"

In other words, the feds could not just "mandate" a national speed limit, they had to use the old trick of "do it, or we'll hold back federal funds".

To my mind, nothing comes closer than regulation of interstate highways as being engaged in "interstate commerce".


Right you are, the reach-out to the liberals is to blunt the objection, mostly, that will allow conservadems (a species which really does exist in NC) to climb on board despite the libdems voting no. The primary effort is moderate Republicans in leadership who do not want this bill voted on, because they do not want to put caucus members on the record on this bill.

Their primary objection is Wickard v. Filburn (1942) in which SCOTUS decreed that the Federal Government could regulate an individual farmer growing wheat for his families personal consumption, since his lack of buying wheat would then affect market pricing. The US Gov required Filburn to burn his crops and pay a fine. The maintenance of this precedent has let to the primary objection on the part of leadership that I need to overcome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

So I also need to have a ready answer to the Wickard v. Filburn question. I know that one of the members will be asking me "What about Wickard v. Filburn where the US Supreme Court held that..."

And I will have to say something a little bit better than simply, "Well, the Supreme Court was wrong."

They were, obviously, but I have to sell that a bit better lol.

As to removing the exceptions....trust me. If I did that in this environment then none of the members would even bother to listen. NC Gov is a Fed-slurping beast, and our better strategy here is to get SOMETHING on the books, no matter how bastardized it may be, and then work on subsequent years to make it stronger.

I don't like it any more than you do, but we do have to work in the environment we are operating in. :(

[ProIndividual]

At the dawn of the 20th century, there was a great scandal, one in which a candidate for US Senator purchased his Senate seat by buying the votes directly. JHGAT in Montana in 1902 bought 123 votes for $10,000 a head. As a result, and with good reason, the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1913 to prevent such corruption in the future.

Wrong. The history is correct, the conclusion is false. The 17th Amendment is horrible. It took the State's say in the Congress away, and gave it to the mob (more democracy). Since the mob is almost always wrong (see the popularity of ending slavery, giving women rights, ending bans on interracial marriage, and desegregating the military), and the mob is fickle and stupid, it tends to elect people that are just like them (fickle and stupid). Not that I'm saying rich people who buy their seats are somehow smarter in a social Darwinistic sense, but that when State legislatures picked the Senators to the Congress, the Senator was beholdent to the State legislature, not to the mob. We had two Houses of Congress for a reason...not just decoration. One house was to be the People's House, and be directly elected...the other house was to balance the mob's moronic nature of mob rule and voting themselves every benefit until the economy collapses with answering not to the mob, but to the State legislators (who are voted in by the people of that State). We are not supposed to have socialist direct democracy, or even indirect democracy...we are NOT a democracy, we are a REpublic. Look at Republics through history, they all had separate houses like this, and many still do. We pretty much ceased to be a Republic between this Amendment and Lincoln's end of "the consent of the governed", or secession rights, around the Civil War (although I'm not sure war was avoidable, although it may well of been avoidable, to end slavery...NOT secession and nullification). You cannot call it a republican form of governemnt (Republic, not the party) when the Senate is voted in like it is now...end of story.

Also...compare bribery then to lobbying now (legal bribery when money, gifts, trips, dinners, and campaign funds are involved), and account for inflation....see how we BRIBE at a 10 times higher rate, in SLOW lobbying years?

The 17th Amendment simply legalized, for all intents and purposes, bribery. Not only that, but it exponentially grew...instead of electing rich corporate heads through local bribes, they elect only corporate water-carriers and special interest losers at no less than 10x the former rate. Same results for corporates and the rich, except MORE of what they wanted...and still that isn't the best point.

The best point is this:

Bribery was illegal then....so why didn't they enforce the law? Ahhhh, because the State was always in the pocket of the corporations...it never was a true Republic. Moving further away from that ideal hardly helps the issue. They simply treated a symptom, and let the disease run rampant. It's the same BS excuse for environmental laws that apply to everyone, not just regulating those who cause harn (a tiny minority). The courts could of just took down those who caused harm....but that monopoly on force was bought and paid for by those doing the harm. So what was the genius solution?

End the monopoly on force? No.

Arrest and convict corrupt judges? No.

Arrest and convict corrupt corporate heads? No.

No, they just gave us nonsense regulation like the EPA...which when you look at a chart had ZERO effect on the environment. Just as OSHA had ZERO effect on worker fatality rates. This isn't arguable, google the charts.

So, the idea treating the symptom cured the disease is nonsense...it always makes it worse. Address the actual issue if you want the problem fixed. The actual problems are/were corporates HARMing other people's environment, corporates illegally HARMing workers with reckless and negligent practices, and in the case of the 17th Amendment the HARM was bribery and corruption....something already outlawed. In all cases the monopoly on force, the judiciary, was complicit...but never once do you suggest that we end this monopoly, or at least attack it with laws already on the books...NOOOOO, you want to continue the corruption, codify it, and then use smoke and mirrors to push the blame on RESULTS from that corruption. You cannot blame the RESULTS of corruption, not attack corruption, and call that RESULT a CAUSE of the problem. It's nonsense.

The CAUSE was either the monopoly on force the courts had, making bribery easy and logical, or the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books regarding bribery and corruption. The RESULT was rich guys buying seats in the Senate by paying off not just politicians in the State House, but the judiciary that would refuse to prosecute it. So fix the disease (CAUSE), don't simply give attention to the symptoms (RESULT). It just makes it worse.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wrong. The history is correct, the conclusion is false. The 17th Amendment is horrible. It took the State's say in the Congress away, and gave it to the mob (more democracy). Since the mob is almost always wrong (see the popularity of ending slavery, giving women rights, ending bans on interracial marriage, and desegregating the military), and the mob is fickle and stupid, it tends to elect people that are just like them (fickle and stupid). Not that I'm saying rich people who buy their seats are somehow smarter in a social Darwinistic sense, but that when State legislatures picked the Senators to the Congress, the Senator was beholdent to the State legislature, not to the mob. We had two Houses of Congress for a reason...not just decoration. One house was to be the People's House, and be directly elected...the other house was to balance the mob's moronic nature of mob rule and voting themselves every benefit until the economy collapses with answering not to the mob, but to the State legislators (who are voted in by the people of that State). We are not supposed to have socialist direct democracy, or even indirect democracy...we are NOT a democracy, we are a REpublic. Look at Republics through history, they all had separate houses like this, and many still do. We pretty much ceased to be a Republic between this Amendment and Lincoln's end of "the consent of the governed", or secession rights, around the Civil War (although I'm not sure war was avoidable, although it may well of been avoidable, to end slavery...NOT secession and nullification). You cannot call it a republican form of governemnt (Republic, not the party) when the Senate is voted in like it is now...end of story.

Correct. That is precicely my argument that the above affects you mention were the unintended consequences of what was accomplished with good intentions -- the end of the kind of corruption exemplified by the Montana US Senate scandal.

Unless you think the STates intended to strip themselves of all power when they ratified it? Like some kinda weird soverign suicide pact?



Also...compare bribery then to lobbying now (legal bribery when money, gifts, trips, dinners, and campaign funds are involved), and account for inflation....see how we BRIBE at a 10 times higher rate, in SLOW lobbying years?

The 17th Amendment simply legalized, for all intents and purposes, bribery. Not only that, but it exponentially grew...instead of electing rich corporate heads through local bribes, they elect only corporate water-carriers and special interest losers at no less than 10x the former rate. Same results for corporates and the rich, except MORE of what they wanted...and still that isn't the best point.

The best point is this:

Bribery was illegal then....so why didn't they enforce the law? Ahhhh, because the State was always in the pocket of the corporations...it never was a true Republic. Moving further away from that ideal hardly helps the issue. They simply treated a symptom, and let the disease run rampant. It's the same BS excuse for environmental laws that apply to everyone, not just regulating those who cause harn (a tiny minority). The courts could of just took down those who caused harm....but that monopoly on force was bought and paid for by those doing the harm. So what was the genius solution?

End the monopoly on force? No.

Arrest and convict corrupt judges? No.

Arrest and convict corrupt corporate heads? No.

No, they just gave us nonsense regulation like the EPA...which when you look at a chart had ZERO effect on the environment. Just as OSHA had ZERO effect on worker fatality rates. This isn't arguable, google the charts.

So, the idea treating the symptom cured the disease is nonsense...it always makes it worse. Address the actual issue if you want the problem fixed. The actual problems are/were corporates HARMing other people's environment, corporates illegally HARMing workers with reckless and negligent practices, and in the case of the 17th Amendment the HARM was bribery and corruption....something already outlawed. In all cases the monopoly on force, the judiciary, was complicit...but never once do you suggest that we end this monopoly, or at least attack it with laws already on the books...NOOOOO, you want to continue the corruption, codify it, and then use smoke and mirrors to push the blame on RESULTS from that corruption. You cannot blame the RESULTS of corruption, not attack corruption, and call that RESULT a CAUSE of the problem. It's nonsense.

The CAUSE was either the monopoly on force the courts had, making bribery easy and logical, or the lack of enforcement of laws already on the books regarding bribery and corruption. The RESULT was rich guys buying seats in the Senate by paying off not just politicians in the State House, but the judiciary that would refuse to prosecute it. So fix the disease (CAUSE), don't simply give attention to the symptoms (RESULT). It just makes it worse.

I am left in doubt that you understand what I am actually arguing. You won't find a bigger opponent of the 17th Amendment than I am. My opponant in the election ran $100,000 worth of multimedium advertising (direct mail, radio, television) to reveal to the voters how deeply I oppose the 17th Amendment.

So convincing me that the 17th Amendment is such a bad thing is not exactly gonna change my mind.....

[GunnyFreedom]

Sadly, Gunny, I've got nothing.

I have to admit, Wickard v. Filburn is a brick wall that I was unfamiliar with. That explains an awful lot.

This is going to require a little research, my first question is this: "If Wickard established the feds authority to regulate, pretty much anything it wants, why was it still required to do an 'end run' around the states WRT national speed limits?"

In other words, the feds could not just "mandate" a national speed limit, they had to use the old trick of "do it, or we'll hold back federal funds".

To my mind, nothing comes closer than regulation of interstate highways as being engaged in "interstate commerce".

Why was Wickard v. Filburn wrong, and what was the APPROPRIATE constitutional remedy for the problem that government was trying to address, and how would obeying the Constitution have solved the problem better.....

[GunnyFreedom]

Wrong. The history is correct, the conclusion is false. The 17th Amendment is horrible.

The argument to which you are responding is an effort to convince moderate to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans to vote in favor of the North Carolina Firearms Freedom Act, and to blunt the objections of "statist liberals" which is why I have asked a variety of people to comment here and help me craft the argument I will be using on Wednesday.

Were I speaking to the John Birch Society, I would be taking the 17th Amendment head on. I am not talking to the John Birch Society.

[ProIndividual]

I must of misunderstood by reading too quickly...I apologize.

What I would say to any lefty who hates nullification...since thats kind of why I originally came over before I totally misread what you said, as I was trying to greedily shove BBQ done my throat hole (lol)...is that if you think individuals have the right to nullify (civil disobedience, i.e., MLKjr.), then you must as a collectivist (which most lefties are) believe logically in COLLECTIVE nullification. The State only does it because the individuals of those States allow it...if it nullifies and it is against the will of those in the State, it is tyranny, not nullification...like slavery was. The State only has sovereignty because the individual does first. Simple concept. Plus Jack Hunter's video on why some of the first nullifiers at the State level were Northern States avoiding the Fugitive Slave Laws, should drive the point home, as you mentioned an example of in the OP (now that I read it correctly...lol).

Apologies friend..,greasy food, typing, and reading fast must not go together.

I'd say Dems like direct democracy, so the 17th may be a bad place to start, as they disagree with that whole idea that it's a bad Amendment. It's hard to say what mod Dems are like tho, in your State...in Ohio mod Dems are the majority of Dems, and love guns...go figure.

Nothing beats risk versus reward stats for rational folks tho (mod Dems usually are at least partially rational).

Explain that there are 13,000 gun murders a year in the US on avg (make sure you say how horrible that is, but...). The flu kills 30,000 annually. Do you run scared from those who sneeze? Unless your twice as afraid of guns as the flu, your being irrational. The fact 400,000 people die of alcohol a year, and 1.2 million from cars should shut them up.

I may of be of no help, totally sorry I speed read your OP (16th)...BBQ is definately food that requires attention...apparently more than can be handled while reading and typing...my fault.

[GunnyFreedom]

I must of misunderstood by reading too quickly...I apologize.

What I would say to any lefty who hates nullification...since thats kind of why I originally came over before I totally misread what you said, as I was trying to greedily shove BBQ done my throat hole (lol)...is that if you think individuals have the right to nullify (civil disobedience, i.e., MLKjr.), then you must as a collectivist (which most lefties are) believe logically in COLLECTIVE nullification. The State only does it because the individuals of those States allow it...if it nullifies and it is against the will of those in the State, it is tyranny, not nullification...like slavery was. The State only has sovereignty because the individual does first. Simple concept. Plus Jack Hunter's video on why some of the first nullifiers at the State level were Northern States avoiding the Fugitive Slave Laws, should drive the point home, as you mentioned an example of in the OP (now that I read it correctly...lol).

Apologies friend..,greasy food, typing, and reading fast must not go together.

I'd say Dems like direct democracy, so the 17th may be a bad place to start, as they disagree with that whole idea that it's a bad Amendment. It's hard to say what mod Dems are like tho, in your State...in Ohio mod Dems are the majority of Dems, and love guns...go figure.

Here's the thing, and it's the very thing that set you off ;) : I didn't disrespect the 17th Amendment.

In fact, to reach the selected target audience I am positioning myself as the hero rushing in to save the 17th Amendment from it's unintended consequences by finding another way. The left in our chamber love to wax poetic about unintended consequences. The moderates love to go on about "having tools in the toolbox."


Nothing beats risk versus reward stats for rational folks tho (mod Dems usually are at least partially rational).

Explain that there are 13,000 gun murders a year in the US on avg (make sure you say how horrible that is, but...). The flu kills 30,000 annually. Do you run scared from those who sneeze? Unless your twice as afraid of guns as the flu, your being irrational. The fact 400,000 people die of alcohol a year, and 1.2 million from cars should shut them up.

I may of be of no help, totally sorry I speed read your OP (16th)...BBQ is definately food that requires attention...apparently more than can be handled while reading and typing...my fault.

Argh, I had about 15 minutes worth of composing done when I hit a bad keystroke and wiped it all out without an undo.

Don't worry man, it's the Internet -- everyone misreads. The rational are separated from the irrational by the same integrity you demonstrate here.

Trips like that are actually helpful for separating people like you from sophistic artists.

I think I can sell libdems on individual sovereignty if I can subsume the language well enough. I probably also need someone to go over my fine strokes with blunt strokes so the same thing can be provided quickly in overview and bullets. I tend to take the old school of classical rhetoric, which lends itself to lengthy, complex, articulated arguments.

A lot like Ron Paul now that I think about it.

[bunklocoempire]

PM incoming.



Bunkloco

[Kylie]

Would the State of North Carolina condone the selling of firearms to foreign drug dealers(operation gunrunner) who, in turn, would use those guns to kill officers of the State of North Carolina?

Well, the Federal government did. And if you had this type of legislation on the books in NC, it very well would have stopped this travesty from happening.

When the Federal government decides to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason, the State absolutely must have steps in place to put the Federal government in it's place. Otherwise, not only will you have people who should not have been able to buy guns in your state(and have the owners of the gun stores put in harms way also), but you would be (almost) condoning the killings of officers of the State. Not just law enforcement officers either, these people very well could decide that the legislators in said State are on the list too.


I am by no means a speaker, or knowledgeable of what you do Glen, but playing into their fears seems to work on the mundanes. Why not use it on your fellow legislators? Who's to say that they could not personally be targeted by those guns that the Feds say are okay to sell to unsavory people who shouldn't be buying them in the first place?

The State should always have the right to tell the Federal Government that they will not do something that will be detrimental to their people or themselves. Death by the hand of an illegally sold firearm is pretty detrimental.

[GunnyFreedom]

Would the State of North Carolina condone the selling of firearms to foreign drug dealers(operation gunrunner) who, in turn, would use those guns to kill officers of the State of North Carolina?

Well, the Federal government did. And if you had this type of legislation on the books in NC, it very well would have stopped this travesty from happening.

When the Federal government decides to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason, the State absolutely must have steps in place to put the Federal government in it's place. Otherwise, not only will you have people who should not have been able to buy guns in your state(and have the owners of the gun stores put in harms way also), but you would be (almost) condoning the killings of officers of the State. Not just law enforcement officers either, these people very well could decide that the legislators in said State are on the list too.


I am by no means a speaker, or knowledgeable of what you do Glen, but playing into their fears seems to work on the mundanes. Why not use it on your fellow legislators? Who's to say that they could not personally be targeted by those guns that the Feds say are okay to sell to unsavory people who shouldn't be buying them in the first place?

The State should always have the right to tell the Federal Government that they will not do something that will be detrimental to their people or themselves. Death by the hand of an illegally sold firearm is pretty detrimental.

That's an excellent reach out to neocon statist types. The kind who worship the police. I used to play league 9-ball in a Raleigh pool joint with a team composed mostly of SBI, and I told them about the NCFFA and how their jurisdiction should trump FBI and BATFE. good good

[Kylie]

Yeah, but I don't think it will help you with the types you're trying to reach.

And unfortunately, I have no ideas to help you with them.


Anyone else??

Bump!

[Pericles]

The underlying issue is who is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. The SCOTUS or the states. Except for the Bill of Rights, 20% of the Constitutional amendments are to overturn SCOTUS decisions.

[GunnyFreedom]

The underlying issue is who is the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. The SCOTUS or the states. Except for the Bill of Rights, 20% of the Constitutional amendments are to overturn SCOTUS decisions.

Excellent, and I agree. Articulating that the States (not SCOTUS) are the final arbiter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution may be difficult, but it should be a relatively short chain of logic once the links are in place

[bunklocoempire]

Status report? Hope it went well!

Go Gunny!!:)


Bunkloco

[aclove]

It did not. What follows are Glen's Facebook updates from today:

Glen Bradley

"HB241 NC Firearms Freedom was supposed to be heard second in J/A, but (six bills later) we didn't get to it in time before I had to leave for Business and Commerce for the Jobs Bill. In Business and Commerce they did not have the A/V equipment I requested, so the explanation of H587 was woefully inadequate. Someone from and environmental group claimed that my bill would make mercury pool in babies cribs."
- 3 hours ago

"Their primary concern, it turns out, was that my bill would not allow regulatory agencies to exceed the mandates handed out by Congress and the General Assembly. Of course, that's my whole point. No unelected rulemaking body should be all...owed to exceed the authority given them by Congress or the General Assembly. The environmental groups object to the requirement in my bill requiring regulatory bodies to not exceed statuatory authority." (in reference to HB 587, the NC Jobs Bill, also scheduled to be heard today)
- 3 hours ago

"There is only one shot left -- it's either voted on next week Wednesday or it's dead."
- 3 hours ago

"No votes on anything. I'm starting to feel a little like Rand Paul, except he is in a minority. That's part of the problem -- I had to agree to no votes just to get heard, so the plan was to allow bipartisan sausage making for a week and ...then come back for a vote to send it to the House Floor.

Now, because of the serial screw ups it will be impossible to engage that process effectively. I am hoping to go member by member to explain the bill and call for amendments and a vote on both bills next Wednesday."
- 3 hours ago

[bunklocoempire]

Thanks aclove.


Bunkloco

[ProIndividual]

Here's the thing, and it's the very thing that set you off : I didn't disrespect the 17th Amendment.

In fact, to reach the selected target audience I am positioning myself as the hero rushing in to save the 17th Amendment from it's unintended consequences by finding another way. The left in our chamber love to wax poetic about unintended consequences. The moderates love to go on about "having tools in the toolbox."



If you are personally and philosophically opposed to something, but use it in an arguement anyway to sway people to your side, that is called sophism. Politicians today treat sophism like an art...but it's an insult. Intellectual dishonesty is another way of saying "sophistry".

I do not accuse you of sophistry here, and I hope you do not take it that way. Also, I know I'm a little late now with the opinions on your speech, etc.

But I am always against propaganda models, and sophistry uses them all. I'd totally advize against this is the future. I hope it all works out for you.

If we are right, we will hardly ever be popular...but we should always argue our true beliefs...because if we fail to do that effectively, we do not have a true arguement, or deserve to lose.

[ProIndividual]

Don't worry man, it's the Internet -- everyone misreads. The rational are separated from the irrational by the same integrity you demonstrate here.

Trips like that are actually helpful for separating people like you from sophistic artists.


Thanks man...and again, sorry for the mistake b4.

And just to re-iterate from the post directly above...I wasn't accusing you of sophism at all...and I know you know what it means, didn't mean to explain it like you DIDN'T USE THE WORD YOURSELF right after what I quoted...lol.

I hope you sway them, and liberty prevails.

Thanks for forgiving my long winded rant on the 17th, when it totally wasnt the point of the post...lol.

[GunnyFreedom]

If you are personally and philosophically opposed to something, but use it in an arguement anyway to sway people to your side, that is called sophism. Politicians today treat sophism like an art...but it's an insult. Intellectual dishonesty is another way of saying "sophistry".

I do not accuse you of sophistry here, and I hope you do not take it that way. Also, I know I'm a little late now with the opinions on your speech, etc.

But I am always against propaganda models, and sophistry uses them all. I'd totally advize against this is the future. I hope it all works out for you.

If we are right, we will hardly ever be popular...but we should always argue our true beliefs...because if we fail to do that effectively, we do not have a true arguement, or deserve to lose.

I don't understand how it's sophistic or a propaganda model, when nullification will be filling the vacuum of the 17th, and thus saving it, which they want. I'm hilighting the part of the effect of the law that they want most. Talking to them where they are. That's not a sophism...

Now if I had said that passing the NCFFA would help turn NC into a socialist paradise, that would be a sophistic argument.

Sophism requires deception.

If all I cared about was getting an electrical connection repaired, and I knew an electrician that just LOVED underground tunnels but hated doing real work, I would sell him on being able to run around in the underground tunnels so much, oh and by the way I need this connection fixed while you are down there.

Every bit of it the dead truth. Sophistic arguments require the element of deception or they are merely rhetorical. As in classic rhetoric not modern.

[GunnyFreedom]

on the political level, you go to the dairy farmer and tell them Ron Paul will let them sell raw milk. Then you go to the restaurant and tell the waitress that Ron Paul wants to stop taxing their tips. Then you go to the airport and tell the TSA that Ron Paul wants to stop making them touch people's junk.

You aren't lying or propagandizing or using sophistic arguments. You take whatever aspect of Ron Paul that appeals to the person in front of you and present that. It's politics 101. Yeah I know Ron Paulers don't do that so much, but then that's part of our problem.