Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

What is it with liberals and gun rights. Liberals simply cannot find an individual right to carry in the U.S. Constitution, even though it is explicitly cited in amendments that specifically address only individual rights, but can find a right to abortion which is somehow invisibly inserted somewhere in the same document. Just recently, a Macomb Township ordinance banning guns in public places came under scrutiny when a gun rights group, Michigan Open Carry, was to hold a picnic in a park - by definition a public location.

A Macomb Township ordinance that bans firearms in public parks caused a bit of a stir Thursday and briefly threatened a public picnic planned by a gun-rights group.

But after consultations among a representative of Michigan Open Carry, township lawyers and officials and Macomb County Sheriff Mark Hackel, the picnic at Macomb Corners Park will proceed as planned Saturday.

The controversy centered on the township ordinance and a state law. Township officials initially cited their ordinance as the prevailing law, which likely would have resulted either in cancellation of the picnic or the specter of deputy sheriffs writing tickets to all who attended.

But John Roshek, Southeast Regional Coordinator of Michigan Open Carry, brought to the attention of local officials a Michigan law that pre-empts local governments from imposing restrictions on firearm possession. The law is based on a 2003 case involving the city of Ferndale decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

After a flurry of telephone calls and discussions among the principals, Macomb County Sheriff Mark Hackel delivered the final verdict late Thursday afternoon.

"They (Michigan Open Carry) are right," the sheriff said. "The group � can carry their guns."

Roshek was confident the state law would prevail, but he said he was pleased the confusion could be resolved in a civil manner.


more . . . pics too . . .

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009...epeal-2nd.html



Law backs right of gun group to hold picnic


The controversy centered on the township ordinance and a state law. Township officials initially cited their ordinance as the prevailing law, which likely would have resulted either in cancellation of the picnic or the specter of deputy sheriffs writing tickets to all who attended.

But John Roshek, Southeast Regional Coordinator of Michigan Open Carry, brought to the attention of local officials a Michigan law that pre-empts local governments from imposing restrictions on firearm possession. The law is based on a 2003 case involving the city of Ferndale decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

After a flurry of telephone calls and discussions among the principals, Macomb County Sheriff Mark Hackel delivered the final verdict late Thursday afternoon.

"They (Michigan Open Carry) are right," the sheriff said. "The group � can carry their guns."

Roshek also said the uncertainty of public officials underscores the reason his group holds events like the picnic: to educate the public about Michigan gun laws.

"This is a perfect example," he said.

more . . .

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/...0006114137.txt

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Will Michigan nullify Federal Gun Laws ?

Introduced in the Michigan House on August 11, 2009, the �Firearms Freedom Act� (HB-5232) seeks �to make certain findings regarding intrastate commerce; to prohibit federal regulation of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition involved purely in intrastate commerce in [the State of Michigan]; to provide for certain exceptions to federal regulation; and to establish certain manufacturing requirements.�

The bill was authored by Rep. Phillip Pavlov and currently has 44 co-sponsors.

While the HB5232�s title focuses on federal gun regulations, it has far more to do with the 10th Amendment�s limit on the power of the federal government. It specifically states:

The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under amendments IX and X of the constitution of the United States, particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition.

Some supporters of the legislation say that a successful application of such a state-law would set a strong precedent and open the door for states to take their own positions on a wide range of activities that they see as not being authorized to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

Firearms Freedom Acts have already passed in both Montana and Tennessee, and have been introduced in a number of other states around the country. There�s been no lack of controversy surrounding them, either. The Tenth Amendment Center recently reported on the ATF�s position that such laws don�t matter:

The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to �all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees� in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that �Federal law supersedes the Act�, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders� vision of constitutional government:

�Their view is that the states exist for the administrative convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the latter.�

�This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it doesn�t suit them.�

Advocates of these efforts say it doesn�t matter if the federal government disagrees, or even threatens states over funding, as they did recently with Oklahoma. Gary Marbut, author of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and founder of http://www.firearmsfreedomact.com/ took this position in a recent interview with the Tenth Amendment Center:

�We�re not depending on permission from federal judges to be able to effectuate our state-made guns bills. And, we�re working on other strategies to wrest essential and effective power from the federal government and put it where it belongs.�

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state �nullifies� a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or �non-effective,� within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

All across the country, activists and state-legislators are pressing for similar legislation, to nullify specific federal laws within their states.

A proposed Constitutional Amendment to effectively ban national health care will go to a vote in Arizona in 2010. Thirteen states now have some form of medical marijuana laws - in direct contravention to federal laws which state that the plant is illegal in all circumstances. And, massive state nullification of the 2005 Real ID Act has rendered the law void.

While many advocates concede that a federal court battle has a slim chance of success, they point to the successful nullification of the Real ID Act as a blueprint to resist various federal laws that they see as outside the scope of the Constitution.

Some say that each successful state-level resistance to federal programs will only embolden others to try the same � resulting in an eventual shift of power from the federal government to the States and the People themselves.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/...eral-gun-laws/

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

I am sure the Sunday paper will be full of accounts of the massacre at the picnic. Bloodied bodies, dead children, shooting rampages, carnage never before seen in that county. A virtual war zone type of scene. [:sarc:]

Oh wait, nothing happened, nobody was murdered, no accidental shootings, not even a loud argument.

The gun banners must be so disappointed.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

http://miopencarry.org/Images/mioc_header_sm.jpg

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

You were right, just got the location wrong. Your account was in the Detroit Metro newspaper (or do they still have one?).

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

You mean the guns didnt go on a killing spree that rivaled Mickey and Mallory Knox from Natural Born Killers???

Come on now, we all know that any firearm cannot be trusted not to arbitrarily sprout legs and the ability to fire on its own killing everyone in a 1,000,000 mile radius!!!!!!!!!

Im so disappointed!!!

:mad_m:




























































































:504::504::504::504::504::504:

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Liberals care nothing about the Constitution. They want to rewrite it and change America into a socialist/Communist ditatorship.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

QFT.........


Now they wanna change "jungles" into "rainforests" for the history books


Newspeak at its finest.


T

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

More of this. And the Sheriffs need to involve themselves in the protection of rights from outside influences. ie, Fed and State.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Conservatives care nothing about the constitution either. They also want a socialist state. They just have different favored causes than the liberals do. They voted overwhelmingly alongside the liberals in favor of the bank bailouts last year, didn't they? Wouldn't that make them supporters of corporate socialism? They also support the existence of the state, the state-sponsored wealth redistribution system of theft and coercion known as taxation, and they embrace the same utilitarian "ends justifies the means" reasoning that so-called liberals do.

Conservatives are every bit as socialist as liberals. When it comes to socialism, the conservative/liberal dichotomy is a false one.

Here is one good essay, it's main fault that it doesn't delve deeply enough.

Conservative Socialism

This one is even better:
This Too Shall Pass .. but we can certainly help it along

Some excerpts from the latter one:

There is no such thing as a statist who isn't a socialist. While there are differences in degree from one state to the next, there is no difference in kind.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Show me anywhere in my post where I defended neocons, Republicans, etc. Canadian-guerilla was talking about liberals so I was staying on topic.

One thing I have noticed is when you mention the word "liberal" on here there is a small core group that always comes along crying, "well...well the conservatives are too!!!11". Makes me wonder.....

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

What is it you wonder? Do you wonder if I'm part of this core group you speak of? I'll put your mind to ease... I am opposed to the very existence of the state - I'm anti-state. Conservatives and Liberals, in the common political usage, are both statists. Hence I am neither, and I condemn the beliefs and attitudes of both groups, insofar as they justify and support statism.

Anyway, I didn't say you were defending neocons or Republicans, etc. I was only pointing out how one-sided it is to accuse only liberals of being socialists.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Yep, 'God Save Us' from conservatives like "Ronnie the Red" Reagan.{one of my favorite pictures is of him and tricky dicky side by side at a dinner party in the 1950s outside under the Owl at the Grove} If you go waay back and research the early history of the vile two faced Republican Party in the 1850s you will find that it was formed with Rothschild money useing the very same communist agents they had used to stir up the 1848 Communist Revolt in europe. These mostly Prussian people came over here and formed the REPUBLICAN PARTY and stirred up the horrible Civil War. Many of them bought generalships in the northern army.~~~~~~Sorry about the OT rant, but I also hate it when I see this liberal/conservative bs going down from people that have been fed too much propaganda. They can't get it in their heads that the real war has always been between the elite and US.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Sorry Doge, But I have a bone to pick with you. What we have now ARE NOT Liberals, they should be called either Neo-Libs or "Progressives"

They DO NOT stand for what Liberalism really means....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberal

Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism[4]) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government.


Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. The ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law."[10] For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic with protections for individual liberty, over a pure democracy, reasoning that in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole...and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party...."[22]

According to Anthony Quinton, classical liberals believe that "an unfettered market" is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they "are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government."[23]

Classical liberals' advocacy of an "unregulated free market" is founded on an "assumption about individuals being rational, self-interested and methodical in the pursuit of their goals."[25]

Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant�s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."[26]

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Words change meaning over time. That's just a fact that can not be disputed. Liberal today means something different than it did in the past.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

That is correct, and conservatism means something completely different than it did 8 years ago.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

Then we TAKE THE WORD BACK and call those idiots what they are.

Re: Macomb Township tries to repeal 2A
 

I would actually say current day conservatives favor more towards Fascism.

Either way you go, Fascist/Socialist are just two different sides of the same tyrannical coin.

Dave