I recently got an email from the GOA about supressor deregulation moving forward in congress....


   do supressors have to do with the 2nd Amendment?  Other than a cool toy,  will a supressors do for our RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms??


This is my email inquiring...






While supressors deregulation is all well and good, and such regulation obviously unessisary and illogical, what exactly does it have to do with the 2nd Amendment and the daily infingmnet of these RIGHTS in many states?  I live in the leftist state of Hawaii, where our GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE is INFRINGED UPON by the state and local government, where NO COMMON CITIZEN is ever issued a permit to conceal, nor open, carry a firearm, for self protection.
This, in my eyes, is the CORE of our 2nd Amendment rights.  Where are the Republicans, who we fought so hard to gain majority, on this issue of illegal infringment??? 
We are at the mercy of CRIMINALS here, we have only our wits and fists to hopefully fend off deadly attack to ourselves and loved ones in public.  Hopefully, one is of enough stature, and the druggies and hoodlums are in enough of an emaciated state as to defend against attack.. 

This is where the first fight for the 2nd Amendment needs to be concentrated. Not on toys.. 

Please redirect energy.

Thank you.
[Heavies]


http://www.gunowners.org/video-it-s-time-to-deregulate-suppressors.htm




Thoughts?

I recently got an email from the GOA about supressor deregulation moving forward in congress....


   do supressors have to do with the 2nd Amendment?  Other than a cool toy,  will a supressors do for our RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms??


This is my email inquiring...






While supressors deregulation is all well and good, and such regulation obviously unessisary and illogical, what exactly does it have to do with the 2nd Amendment and the daily infingmnet of these RIGHTS in many states?  I live in the leftist state of Hawaii, where our GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE is INFRINGED UPON by the state and local government, where NO COMMON CITIZEN is ever issued a permit to conceal, nor open, carry a firearm, for self protection.
This, in my eyes, is the CORE of our 2nd Amendment rights.  Where are the Republicans, who we fought so hard to gain majority, on this issue of illegal infringment??? 
We are at the mercy of CRIMINALS here, we have only our wits and fists to hopefully fend off deadly attack to ourselves and loved ones in public.  Hopefully, one is of enough stature, and the druggies and hoodlums are in enough of an emaciated state as to defend against attack.. 

This is where the first fight for the 2nd Amendment needs to be concentrated. Not on toys.. 

Please redirect energy.

Thank you.
[Heavies]


http://www.gunowners.org/video-it-s-time-to-deregulate-suppressors.htm




Thoughts?

What, exactly, do you expect Senators and Representatives from other states to do about Hawaii's laws?  If our delegates to Congress are okay with the existing situation, no one else is going to push their legislation on our state.

All of the issues you mentioned are problems with state laws, not federal.  Other states are operating in a much more 2A-friendly environment under the same federal laws, so obviously it's not a problem with Congress, the Republican majority, or even President Trump.

If we had a majority in the state legislature, then you'd have a gripe against the party.  We're not even close.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. 

What, exactly, do you expect Senators and Representatives from other states to do about Hawaii's laws?  If our delegates to Congress are okay with the existing situation, no one else is going to push their legislation on our state.

All of the issues you mentioned are problems with state laws, not federal.  Other states are operating in a much more 2A-friendly environment under the same federal laws, so obviously it's not a problem with Congress, the Republican majority, or even President Trump.

If we had a majority in the state legislature, then you'd have a gripe against the party.  We're not even close.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. 

The Constitutiona is federal law, law that each and every state needs to abide by...  or no?

It's even stated in this State's Constitution

The Constitutiona is federal law, law that each and every state needs to abide by...  or no?

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes 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. In essence, it is a
conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law.

In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all
questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when
that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.

No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure



So, all you need to do now is prove in a court of law that the laws enacted by Hawaii are Unconstitutional based on precedent and existing interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Should be easy enough.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes 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. In essence, it is a
conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law.

In this respect, the Supremacy Clause follows the lead of Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, which provided that "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress Assembled, on all
questions which by this confederation are submitted to them." A constitutional provision announcing the supremacy of federal law, the Supremacy Clause assumes the underlying priority of federal authority, at least when
that authority is expressed in the Constitution itself.

No matter what the federal government or the states might wish to do, they have to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. This makes the Supremacy Clause the cornerstone of the whole American political structure



So, all you need to do now is prove in a court of law that the laws enacted by Hawaii are Unconstitutional based on precedent and existing interpretations of the Second Amendment.

Should be easy enough.

EXACTLY,  the supreme court will not hear any case on carry outside the home...

Federal legislature needs to enact enforcement of the constitution.  It's their gotdamn job.  It's their ONLY gotdamn job. 

EXACTLY,  the supreme court will not hear any case on carry outside the home...

Federal legislature needs to enact enforcement of the constitution.  It's their gotdamn job.  It's their ONLY gotdamn job.

"Enact enforcement?" 

Congress makes/enacts the laws.

The Executive office sets policy to execute the laws.  DOJ prosecutes violators.  That's where enforcement takes place.

The Judiciary adjudicates cases when the laws are not being followed.

So, no -- it's not Congress' job to enforce the laws.  The only real power they have would be to withhold federal funding unless the states cooperate with whatever they ask the states to do.

"Enact enforcement?" 

Congress makes/enacts the laws.

The Executive office sets policy to execute the laws.  DOJ prosecutes violators.  That's where enforcement takes place.

The Judiciary adjudicates cases when the laws are not being followed.

So, no -- it's not Congress' job to enforce the laws.  The only real power they have would be to withhold federal funding unless the states cooperate with whatever they ask the states to do.

If the constitution is not being followed, Congress is free to make law that will override States infringment, such as CCW reciprocity,  if States think that is no good, let them take it to the Supreme court for a change!


I believe the reason SCOUTUS refuses to hear these cases, is that they will be forced to rule in favor.  The status quo, both sides who are fighting tooth and nail against change, would be forever changed by citizens being restored their freedoms.


This would be a huge win for WE THE PEOPLE, and a nail in the coffin for big government. It would represent the power being restored to it's rightful place, the hands of the people.


Perhaps there is a need for SCOTUS to be purged of more judge legislators before this can happen, but this ball needs to stop being stalled, and get rolling.

Making big leaps is great in theory.  But in practice sometimes its easier to make small steps instead.  Sometimes you have to take a few steps before making a big leap.

Making big leaps is great in theory.  But in practice sometimes its easier to make small steps instead.  Sometimes you have to take a few steps before making a big leap.

I don't think it's much of a big leap, no bigger a leap than supressor dereg.  It's a step to bolster the 2nd Amendment,  where as supressor dereg, has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.   Like I said, smoke and mirrors to appease a certain crowd, while all the while, not doing a damn thing.

A big leap would be voting some of these socialist commies out of office

In Hawaii, that's a miracle!