Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 From Breitbart, Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) introduced legislation this week that would prevent states from banning rifles and/or shotguns that are legal federally. The legislation, the Second Amendment Guarantee Act (SAGA), would operate as a national preemption law, preventing states from banning firearms the federal government has not banned. Moreover, it would undo bans contained in laws like New York’s SAFE Act. Full article here: https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2025/01/18/gop-rep-introduces-saga-act-if-you-like-your-ar-15-you-can-keep-your-ar-15/ 5 2 Quote
Colorado Coffinmaker Posted January 19 Posted January 19 INTRODUCED!! Not yet Passed. Don't count your chickens before they hatch?? Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 19 Posted January 19 What a shame that such a bill is needed to force states to uphold the Constitution, protect our civil rights, and follow the rulings of the United States Supreme Court. 10 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said: INTRODUCED!! Not yet Passed. Don't count your chickens before they hatch?? It's a step in the right direction. 3 3 Quote
Blackwater 53393 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 I’ll have an email and a text message to my congressman composed and sent before midnight!! 3 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Like in regards to another topic, assume this passes. States can not ban firearms the Federal government does not ban. This sets up two potential future problems. Citing this law as a foundation, does the Federal government now have the (or more) authority to ban firearms? There are questions about some legislation going back to 1934. If repealed or amended in the future, do states then have the authority to ban firearms? 3 Quote
Chantry Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Interesting and at one level I hope it passes, but I also worry about the unintended consequences of such a bill down the road and I'm generally reluctant to give the Federal government more control over most (if not all) things, especially firearms. 4 Quote
PowderRiverCowboy Posted January 19 Posted January 19 There are many Bills started right now Burlison from Missouri is dropping them left and right , Going big. even if they dont all go through they maybe distractions / bargain chips to let smaller bills get by. 1 HR221 Abolish the ATF 2 HR335 Repeal the NFA There are others Hearing Protection act (suppressors off NFA ) Delete the ATF registry couple smaller ones besides the National concealed carry 4 2 Quote
Sedalia Dave Posted January 19 Posted January 19 The feds already have the ability to ban firearms. Remember Clinton's AWB. 1 Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 19 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said: The feds already have the ability to ban firearms. Remember Clinton's AWB. Congress has to pass it not the feds! Since republicans have control of all 3 branches there’s a good chance this will pass! You if it does the prez will sign it. Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 14 hours ago, Chantry said: Interesting and at one level I hope it passes, but I also worry about the unintended consequences of such a bill down the road and I'm generally reluctant to give the Federal government more control over most (if not all) things, especially firearms. Actually this bill takes away any control the govt has over AR15’s and the like. Quote
PowderRiverCowboy Posted January 19 Posted January 19 39 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said: Congress has to pass it not the feds! Since republicans have control of all 3 branches there’s a good chance this will pass! You if it does the prez will sign it. Hmm with Red flag Bondi as AG and the Pres that agrees with her ? The one that said Take the guns and let them fight in courts for years , Banned Bump stocks that Pres. ? 2 Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 (edited) 11 minutes ago, PowderRiverCowboy said: Hmm with Red flag Bondi as AG and the Pres that agrees with her ? The one that said Take the guns and let them fight in courts for years , Banned Bump stocks that Pres. ? She and the Prez have back tracked on the red flag laws. As far as the bump stock ban the Prez was following the NRA and BTW there is no ban! https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-bump-stocks-b3bd1b4163d78514a6d5acc5b44c8b3d https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2019/10/25/sources-trump-no-longer-backing-red-flag-law-background-check-changes-n35729#google_vignette Edited January 19 by Rye Miles #13621 1 Quote
Pat Riot Posted January 19 Posted January 19 Well, we will see. Personally, I don’t like AR-15s. I like AR-10s, Garands, M1As. Pistol Caliber Carbines are another favorite. 2 2 Quote
Whitey James Posted January 19 Posted January 19 17 minutes ago, Pat Riot said: Well, we will see. Personally, I don’t like AR-15s. I like AR-10s, Garands, M1As. Pistol Caliber Carbines are another favorite. My AR-15 is the least shot gun in my collection. I really only bought one because they were on the endangered species list for years and thought I had better get one, just in case. I prefer long guns with wood furniture and at least a 30 cal projectile. 3 Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 6 minutes ago, Whitey James said: My AR-15 is the least shot gun in my collection. I really only bought one because they were on the endangered species list for years and thought I had better get one, just in case. I prefer long guns with wood furniture and at least a 30 cal projectile. I did the same thing! I shot it once and sold it🙄 Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 19 Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said: I did the same thing! I shot it once and sold it🙄 I have one AR 15 for which I built the lower and purchased an upper. Have all the parts to build a 2nd from scratch, slightly upgraded parts. I have ATF permission to build a 3rd (SBR). I'll finish them over time but I have started migrating to the AK platform, it has more personality. 1 Quote
Texas Joker Posted January 19 Posted January 19 I would like to see the import ban Obama graced us with rescinded. I bought all the furniture I wanted for an ak build and all the comblock demilled and surplus imports dried up before I bought one. 1 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 19 Posted January 19 22 minutes ago, Texas Joker said: I would like to see the import ban Obama graced us with rescinded. I bought all the furniture I wanted for an ak build and all the comblock demilled and surplus imports dried up before I bought one. While no bayonet, here is a nice furniture-ready AK: https://palmettostatearmory.com/psak-47-gf-5-barrel-assembly-furniture-ready-kit.html Quote
Charlie Harley, #14153 Posted January 19 Posted January 19 17 hours ago, Chantry said: Interesting and at one level I hope it passes, but I also worry about the unintended consequences of such a bill down the road and I'm generally reluctant to give the Federal government more control over most (if not all) things, especially firearms. My thoughts exactly. Supporters should be careful what they wish for. And where does the States-Rights Crowd sit on this? Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 19 Posted January 19 14 minutes ago, Charlie Harley, #14153 said: My thoughts exactly. Supporters should be careful what they wish for. And where does the States-Rights Crowd sit on this? Hopefully the state's rights crowd recognizes the federal restriction of the 2nd applies to the states through the 14th. Further, since it is the states which originally required the federal government to recognize a pre-existing right of The People to arms, the states clearly are also bound. Changing the 2nd or the 14th would not change the pre-existing right. Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 19 Posted January 19 The 2nd was incorporated against the States by SCOTUS in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Although, since every State Constitution has a clause that says the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, I really don't understand why there needs to be a ruling by the Court to make sure that each Amendment applies to the States. 1 Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 19 Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Subdeacon Joe said: The 2nd was incorporated against the States by SCOTUS in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Although, since every State Constitution has a clause that says the Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, I really don't understand why there needs to be a ruling by the Court to make sure that each Amendment applies to the States. It shouldn't, but that supreme law of the land specified a court system to do so when necessary. 1 Quote
watab kid Posted January 19 Posted January 19 2 hours ago, Pat Riot said: When do states rights trump the Constitution? never , i believe the constitution is supreme , i also think the Supremes need to say so to eliminate the states infringements as well as those of the feds thus far implemented , but , im all for states rights and believe the feds should stay out of everything that doesnt make us safe from outside as they are mandated to do , that said i hope this legislation gets a fair review and is implemented if found clean of any hidden complications , in many ways i would prefer if no laws got passed and a lot of old one rescinded , but then thats because so many lawyers have found ways to use abuse and twist them into things never intended 2 Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 19 Posted January 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, watab kid said: never , i believe the constitution is supreme , i also think the Supremes need to say so to eliminate the states infringements as well as those of the feds thus far implemented , but , im all for states rights and believe the feds should stay out of everything that doesnt make us safe from outside as they are mandated to do , In a sense, they have done so twice. In two cases involving the 2nd amendment, the court has said they have not had to make that determination (raised by those supporting infringements) as the court found the interpretation did not change in that period (showing the tradition). States have tried claiming while the 2nd binds the Fed, it does not bind the states the same way. This argument is based on the 14th binding the states and therefore the bill of rights needs to be interpreted in a different updated way. But the grabbers have still pushed this as an issue. In particular, Hawaii has pushed interpretation of both the 2nd and 14th based on when it became a state (1959). I would like the Supremes to state the core document and the Bill Of Rights are to be interpreted as to the understanding in 1791, the 14th is to be interpreted as to the understanding of just it was understood in 1866-1868, and all amendments are interpreted based on the understanding at the time of passage/ratification. And the date of statehood, before or after, is not the date of interpretation of anything but the documents from that time making it a state. This still leaves a little unresolved issue regarding Texas and its right to secede, but when it seceded to join the South in the Civil War, It did not join Mexico (this was the specific right it had, to secede and join Mexico). Courts now presume it has lost its right to secede for this singular purpose however it is not clearly expressed as such since reconstruction. Edited January 19 by John Kloehr 2 Quote
Alpo Posted January 19 Posted January 19 6 hours ago, Whitey James said: I really only bought one because they were on the endangered species list for years and thought I had better get one, just in case I believe that is the main reason that the AR-15 is "the best selling gun in the country!!!!" People heard it was going to be outlawed so they hurriedly went out and bought one while they still could. So they are going to outlaw RG 22 short revolvers. Should you immediately go buy one before you won't be allowed to buy one? That is about the stupidest damn reason I've ever heard of for buying something. They are going to outlaw ARs? I don't care. I don't want an AR. So I don't care whether they're legal or not. Certainly don't care enough to go buy one. Quote
John Kloehr Posted January 20 Posted January 20 The AR is an interesting evolution of semi-automatic firearms. By putting the stock in line with the bore (there is that buffer tube), muzzle rise is reduced, Moving the optics up as a result of the stock alignment (lowering the barrel relative to the eyes) allows a more level head (literally level left to right level) improving sense of balance and therefore mobility, and this makes a hand grip logical due to the changes in angles. That is all it is as a platform. The grabbers are arguing about features. It is a great platform for coyotes on the ranch and other legal purposes. 2 Quote
watab kid Posted January 20 Posted January 20 1 hour ago, John Kloehr said: In a sense, they have done so twice. In two cases involving the 2nd amendment, the court has said they have not had to make that determination (raised by those supporting infringements) as the court found the interpretation did not change in that period (showing the tradition). States have tried claiming while the 2nd binds the Fed, it does not bind the states the same way. This argument is based on the 14th binding the states and therefore the bill of rights needs to be interpreted in a different updated way. But the grabbers have still pushed this as an issue. In particular, Hawaii has pushed interpretation of both the 2nd and 14th based on when it became a state (1959). I would like the Supremes to state the core document and the Bill Of Rights are to be interpreted as to the understanding in 1791, the 14th is to be interpreted as to the understanding of just it was understood in 1866-1868, and all amendments are interpreted based on the understanding at the time of passage/ratification. And the date of statehood, before or after, is not the date of interpretation of anything but the documents from that time making it a state. This still leaves a little unresolved issue regarding Texas and its right to secede, but when it seceded to join the South in the Civil War, It did not join Mexico (this was the specific right it had, to secede and join Mexico). Courts now presume it has lost its right to secede for this singular purpose however it is not clearly expressed as such since reconstruction. i appreciate this insight i tend to see the complications but again it seems the Supremes need to clarify it , its gotten way to common for states and admins to ignore their rulings saying the law doesnt apply to them , my take is it explicitly applies to them , Quote
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 10 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said: Congress has to pass it not the feds! Since republicans have control of all 3 branches there’s a good chance this will pass! You if it does the prez will sign it. Sadly, not likely. The R's have a razor thin majority in the House. That said, you can be sure the D's vote will be 100% in opposition. The R side is rarely that cohesive. Will the majority of R's support it? Prob'ly. In toto? Doubtful. But I hope I'm incorrect! 1 Quote
Rye Miles #13621 Posted January 20 Posted January 20 26 minutes ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said: Sadly, not likely. The R's have a razor thin majority in the House. That said, you can be sure the D's vote will be 100% in opposition. The R side is rarely that cohesive. Will the majority of R's support it? Prob'ly. In toto? Doubtful. But I hope I'm incorrect! I hope so too!! I’m thinking they’re may be some dems in close races and in purple states that may vote yes. I know wishful thinking 🙄 1 Quote
watab kid Posted January 20 Posted January 20 i have hope for reclaiming our 2nd , i like my AR15s and AR10 , im not hiving them up , Quote
Subdeacon Joe Posted January 20 Posted January 20 3 hours ago, John Kloehr said: In a sense, they have done so twice. In two cases involving the 2nd amendment, the court has said they have not had to make that determination (raised by those supporting infringements) as the court found the interpretation did not change in that period (showing the tradition). States have tried claiming while the 2nd binds the Fed, it does not bind the states the same way. This argument is based on the 14th binding the states and therefore the bill of rights needs to be interpreted in a different updated way. But the grabbers have still pushed this as an issue. In particular, Hawaii has pushed interpretation of both the 2nd and 14th based on when it became a state (1959). I would like the Supremes to state the core document and the Bill Of Rights are to be interpreted as to the understanding in 1791, the 14th is to be interpreted as to the understanding of just it was understood in 1866-1868, and all amendments are interpreted based on the understanding at the time of passage/ratification. And the date of statehood, before or after, is not the date of interpretation of anything but the documents from that time making it a state. This still leaves a little unresolved issue regarding Texas and its right to secede, but when it seceded to join the South in the Civil War, It did not join Mexico (this was the specific right it had, to secede and join Mexico). Courts now presume it has lost its right to secede for this singular purpose however it is not clearly expressed as such since reconstruction. The first citation is by the California State Supreme Court, second by SCOTUS. Per SCOTUS all the enumerated civil rights should be off political table : Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." (Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756) and "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." : Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.kix.editors.clipboard?uuid=96592fc7-0c0e-4048-bd9d-02dafde79b85 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.