-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
We need this law here...
- Thread starter roscoe13
- Start date
'splain sumthin' to me
Why does Florida need a law to enforce an existing law?
Now I am somewhat pleased to note that the new law also makes local officials personally liable for violations of the 1987 preemption law, thus taking the burden of illigal and officious mischief off the backs of the taxpayers. I would support something like that here in Virginia, as opposed to trying to prove mis- and malfeasance to try to overcome claims of soverign immunity.
And since you brought it up, I am nominating you to carry forward and find a sponsor for a bill to do just that. Call on me if you think I can help, but you get the honor of taking the point on this.
stay safe.
Why does Florida need a law to enforce an existing law?
Now I am somewhat pleased to note that the new law also makes local officials personally liable for violations of the 1987 preemption law, thus taking the burden of illigal and officious mischief off the backs of the taxpayers. I would support something like that here in Virginia, as opposed to trying to prove mis- and malfeasance to try to overcome claims of soverign immunity.
And since you brought it up, I am nominating you to carry forward and find a sponsor for a bill to do just that. Call on me if you think I can help, but you get the honor of taking the point on this.
stay safe.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
I'd be willing to write to my state reps in order to something like this passed. It would really piss off the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors...
TFred
Regular Member
Kinda like our preemption law.....
and FOIA, and Records Retention, and Database Statute....
I'd go on but Obama's on and I need a good laugh:lol:
roscoe13
Campaign Veteran
I just wrote Delegate Lingamfelter and asked him to do just that. I also asked him to work on getting intent to commit a crime added to 18.2-308.1....
Roscoe
TFred
Regular Member
The new Florida preemption law just went into effect. Looks like Florida Carry has already filed a lawsuit against University of North Florida on their campus prohibition.
We need this law here!! Gotta get Saslaw out of his leadership position first.
Florida Carry Sues Over University Parking Lot Gun Ban
TFred
We need this law here!! Gotta get Saslaw out of his leadership position first.
Florida Carry Sues Over University Parking Lot Gun Ban
TFred
user
Accomplished Advocate
You mean something like this?
Virginia Constitution, Article 1, Section 13: "Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power."
I particularly like that phrase, "shall not be infringed." Is there really any question what that phrase means? Still, as an attorney, and one whose practice involves a lot of firearms litigation, I might have financial problems if that provision of the Constitution were given effect. All those gun-regulation statutes would just go away.
Virginia Constitution, Article 1, Section 13: "Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power."
I particularly like that phrase, "shall not be infringed." Is there really any question what that phrase means? Still, as an attorney, and one whose practice involves a lot of firearms litigation, I might have financial problems if that provision of the Constitution were given effect. All those gun-regulation statutes would just go away.
No.
Because apparently even the founders did not really mean "shall not be infringed" as an absolute. This I know because SCOTUS tells me so. (and no points off to anyone who sang that last part
)Or if The Fonders really did mean it as an absolute, the fact that many infringements have continued for so long means that the infringements get a pass based on their longivity. This I also know because SCOTUS tells me so.
stay safe.
TFred
Regular Member
I shudder to think what we might have left today if the Constitution said "can only be infringed a little bit..."No.
Because apparently even the founders did not really mean "shall not be infringed" as an absolute. This I know because SCOTUS tells me so. (and no points off to anyone who sang that last part
Or if The Fonders really did mean it as an absolute, the fact that many infringements have continued for so long means that the infringements get a pass based on their longivity. This I also know because SCOTUS tells me so.
stay safe.
:uhoh:
TFred
Prescriptive infringements = imperial prerogatives, because the lord and master says so.
........................................................................................................................
user
Accomplished Advocate
Well, start shuddering ... I'm thinking that Justice Scalia's language in the Heller case was the final nail in the Bill of Rights' coffin, as well as federalism, generally: "subject to reasonable regulation". If the Second Amendment, which if I recall correctly, is the only one that specifically says something to the effect that it is to be construed as an absolute prohibition against regulation, can be subject to "reasonable regulation", then you don't have any rights at all.
user
Accomplished Advocate
Actually, if I recall correctly, that phrase referred to a series of sort of treaties between the Northern German quasi-independent princes and the Holy Roman Empire in the form of Frederick II, by which the Empire's prerogatives were reduced in exchange for the princes' continued participation. But that was a long time ago, late Fifteenth Century, I think, and I could be wrong; my memory isn't that good.