HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » (MI) Senate bill: Michiga...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:07 PM

(MI) Senate bill: Michigan-made guns, ammo sold in state would be exempt from federal regulations

Source: MLive

Senate bill: Michigan-made guns, ammo sold in state would be exempt from federal regulations
By Melissa Anders | manders@mlive.com
on January 17, 2013 at 5:21 PM, updated January 17, 2013 at 5:25 PM

LANSING, MI Republican Senators introduced a bill to prohibit federal regulation of Michigan-made firearms that stay within the state.

The move came on the same day President Barack Obama asked Congress to reinstate bans on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and to pass universal background checks for gun purchases. The recent push for gun control reform was prompted by the tragic elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Firearms, ammunition or accessories that are manufactured and sold in Michigan would not be subject to federal regulations under the bill.

-snip-

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has issued letters to states that have passed the laws, stating that federal law supersedes the state laws, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act continue to apply.

-snip-


Read more: http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/01/michigan-made_guns_ammo_that_s.html#incart_river



This made me think of DOJ treatment of medical marijuana operations in California.

30 replies, 3408 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply (MI) Senate bill: Michigan-made guns, ammo sold in state would be exempt from federal regulations (Original post)
Bozita Jan 2013 OP
MichiganVote Jan 2013 #1
Stonepounder Jan 2013 #2
hack89 Jan 2013 #9
another_liberal Jan 2013 #12
hack89 Jan 2013 #14
another_liberal Jan 2013 #21
happyslug Jan 2013 #22
hack89 Jan 2013 #23
Bobcat Jan 2013 #3
another_liberal Jan 2013 #8
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #4
another_liberal Jan 2013 #10
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #11
another_liberal Jan 2013 #13
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #15
another_liberal Jan 2013 #18
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #19
another_liberal Jan 2013 #20
BainsBane Jan 2013 #5
DreWId Jan 2013 #6
another_liberal Jan 2013 #7
atreides1 Jan 2013 #16
another_liberal Jan 2013 #17
loose wheel Jan 2013 #25
another_liberal Jan 2013 #26
loose wheel Jan 2013 #27
another_liberal Jan 2013 #28
Massacure Jan 2013 #29
xoom Jan 2013 #24
okaawhatever Jan 2013 #30

Response to Bozita (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:09 PM

1. Oh good another opportunity for Schuette to waste more taxpayer $ arguing w/the feds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:14 PM

2. Difference between R's and D's

When Obama insists on arresting medical marijuana dealers in places like California. Democrats rally and try and get Obama and Congress to change their minds.

When Obama wants to place some limitations on weapons, Republicans threaten to impeach him, stomp their feet, and pass state laws to supersede Federal regulations.

Democrats understand that Federal trumps State and when states forget that, unpleasant things occur - like civil War, or Federalized National Guardsmen in the streets of Mississippi.

It is said that those who can't remember history are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, Repubicans seem to have very short memories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stonepounder (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:35 PM

9. So Federal drug laws trump Colorado and Washington marijuana legalization?

really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:44 PM

12. Of course they do.

Of course they do, however, those Federal drug laws would have to be enforced. The President has already said that is not something he wants the D.O.J. to waste its resources on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:48 PM

14. But state officials are not required to enforce federal laws

nor do the have to cooperate with federal officials.

This will be an interesting food fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:37 PM

21. They may not have to cooperate . . .

They may not have to cooperate, but many will choose to anyway. And they had better not try to obstruct a federal law enforcement officer either. That could mean seeing Leavenworth from the inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:53 PM

22. Depends on the Federal Law

In some cases the Federal Government CAN require State officials to enforce Federal Law. These cases tend to be decided on how much control the Federal law leaves the State or Local Officials.

One way around and State or Local opposition is to have the Federal law be permitted to be enforced by State and Local Law Enforcement, even if State and Local law forbids it AND then add any property confiscated by such local or state law enforcement agency, belongs to such Local and State Law Enforcement agency even if State law says such confiscated property goes elsewhere.

Also remember the Federal Government can enforce its own law, including confiscation of any property used, even legal to own property, like the house it is sold in, the land it is grown on, the vehicle it is found in etc.

Just a comment on the various attempts at State "Nullification" of Federal Law, it has been done since the start of the Republic and generally been over turned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #22)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:35 AM

23. Mack and Printz v. United States addresses many of those issues

The plaintiffs

Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen P. Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law.

Higher court decisions

In each case, the District Court held that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional, but concluded that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

State LEO cannot be compelled to execute Federal law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:16 PM

3. Nullification

Welcome to 1831 - nullification. It appears these dolts are completely unaware of the supremacy clause in the Constitution of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bobcat (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:29 PM

8. Right.

Who elected these dimwits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:19 PM

4. Several states are doing that.

They may have an argument under the commerce clause of the Constitution and under the Tenth Amendment. The states will be trying to take it to SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:35 PM

10. Except that the Supreme Court . . .

Except that the Supreme Court would potentially be giving up much of its own power if it decided with them. It is not a Constitutional argument and they will not decide in favor of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:42 PM

11. Maybe. I am not a lawyer. We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:47 PM

13. I doubt we'll see much of anything.

I doubt we'll see much of anything, except maybe more big talk from some very little people. If a Federal Marshall shows you his badge, I suggest you do exactly what he tells you to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:53 PM

15. Of course. And then the state takes it to court afterwards. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:34 PM

18. You always have that recourse . . .

You always have that recourse, either you or your surviving relatives that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:41 PM

19. Never argue with the cop at the time.

That is what the courts are for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:44 PM

20. Too true, brother.

Otherwise, the worst kind of things can happen real fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:24 PM

5. Because all Detroit needs is a higher murder rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:25 PM

6. MI Militias?

How much of this has to do with the Michigan Militias that are prevalent in the state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 08:26 PM

7. Andrew Jackson would ride into Lansing . . .

Andrew Jackson would ride into Lansing at the head of an army and hang every one of these fools from the nearest tree limb. That is what he warned South Carolina he was about to do, and those high and mighty nullificationists backed down damn quick. His mere threat prevented the Civil War for nearly three decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:19 PM

16. Unfortunately

We don't have Andrew Jackson or Zachary Taylor in the White House...we have the man Americans voted for...the sad part is that it's very likely that some of those Americans also voted for the Republicans that are in control of the House!

Personally hanging a few of these neo-nobility party(Tea Party) hacks might get some needed attention..but it won't happen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:31 PM

17. Quite true. Still . . .

Still, those who proceed on this course of placing themselves above the authority of our federal laws should be ready to pay the price. That is already true for the inoffensive individuals who grow and distribute pot under the supposed protection of lenient State regulations, so it damn well had better be true for anyone who tries to flaunt federal gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:23 AM

25. Andrew Jackson...

 

also did absolutely nothing to compel the state of Georgia to abide the US Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester vs. Georgia that Georgia had no right to compel the Cherokee living within it's borders to leave. I believe the comment was, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Jackson was a shrewd man. He knew he could gather an army from the rest of the states to compel South Carolina to remain in the union. That he would be able to raise an army from the other states to force Georgia to give fair treatment to indians living there was far more doubtful. In the end the best he could do was order the army to help the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears as much as they could, which wasn't much.

Michigan isn't threatening secession, neither is Texas, California, or Colorado. The argument is that the US government is out of it's proper bounds is the same on both issues, and essentially that it is abusing the commerce clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loose wheel (Reply #25)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 02:27 PM

26. Guns and pot . . .

Guns and pot are quite different things. Growing and even selling weed will not (and should not) be treated with the same seriousness as violations of federal gun laws. The President knows that, the people of this country know that, and I imagine at least a bare majority of this Supreme Court knows it too. Just let the tea party wingnuts, militia freaks and their State Government level enablers try to flaunt federal firearms regulations, they will soon learn a lesson they'll never forget.

As to Andrew Jackson: He looked on Native Americans in a way it is hard for a modern mind to comprehend. In my opinion, he saw them as hardly better than wolves on two legs, completely unfit to live alongside civilized white men. That he held such a bias, and acted on it so cruelly, is no doubt his greatest shame. He did not confront Georgia over seizure of Cherokee lands because he agreed with what was being done. He went even further and signed into law the "Indian Removal Act" which was the legal justification for forcing all Native Americans to regions West of the Mississippi River. As I mentioned before, it is his enduring shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #26)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:33 PM

27. His son...

 

Andrew Jackson's adopted son, his only child, was an indian.

He fought alongside indians against other indians and the British. His Creek name was "Sharp Knife". He was well known amongst the tribes in the south.

He had plenty of thoughts about indians and the indian nations. He opposed the notion that the indians living in US territory could have treaties with the government as the government might have with foreign nations. He believed they were either US citizens or should be removed to the Indial territories. The Indian Removal Act provided money that provided the logistics of what was already happening. He didn't have to like it.

As far as the difference between guns and cannabis goes, the commerce clause clearly states that the federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over commerce that does not cross over state lines. The ninth and tenth amendments delegate anything the constitution doesn't cover to the states. Therefore, legally it's the same case.

As far as the federal government enforcing anything? The mexican cartels are busy destroying the ecology of the national forests in Northern California. These are visible from the air. I haven't noticed any efforts by large groups of armed federal agents to stop these which are violations of several laws. My guess is they won't challenge it. There is a reason for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loose wheel (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:03 PM

28. "They never hate you so much . . ."

"They never hate you so much that they won't use you."

You can try to rehabilitate Andrew Jackson in regard to his treatment of Native Americans if you want to. There is an old tradition of such quixotic efforts among historical scholars. Personally, though, I am not buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loose wheel (Reply #27)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:40 PM

29. I recall a Supreme Court decision...

I don't believe your point about not having jurisdiction to be quite right. I remember reading about a Supreme Court decision that allowed the federal government to confiscate land from a farmer who was growing wheat for his own consumption. They successfully argued that by growing his own food, he was affecting interstate commerce by not participating.

I could see a similar argument here that the Michigan legislature is giving an unfair advantage to its own gun manufacturers which in turn affects interstate commerce.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:49 AM

24. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozita (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:24 AM

30. Obama needs to tie all federal money to compliance. Same thing happened with drunk driving laws and

raising drinking age to 21. No state was required to change, but they weren't eligible for fed hwy funds unless they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread