South Carolina Says Come And Get Their Guns To Feds

[wylie]

South Carolina says come and get their guns to the federal government .
When other states are standing up to an out-of-control government, who is going against the Constitution, I didn't think the state of South Carolina would just stand there and watch people come into they're estate of South Carolina and trample the Constitution.
http://www.kershawcountypatriots.com/sc ... -the-guns/

 

[Avtomat-Acolyte]

That "article" is very poorly written and edited. Is it from a middle school civics project?

 

[Tigerstripe]

think about it, IF a law is PASSED changing the Constitution it WILL NOT be illegal for people to come get our guns.

thats the way they are looking at it. everybody is saying its unconstitutional, yes NOW it is, but once some part is changed, some legal mumbo jumbo that we dont know about, the law and military will have no choice.

 

[PCShogun]

Tiger,

That IS the dilema. If a law is passed that allows confiscation, it is then legal to do so, until the law is overturned (if it ever is).

That is why I am so concerned. If it does become law, what will I do? I honestly do not know.

 

[Avtomat-Acolyte]

If a law is passed changing part of the US Constitution it will require 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House of Representatives agreeing to do so.

That is highly unlikely for pretty much anything.

 

[craigp]

CORRECTION: South Carolina hasn't said "come get our guns, our AG said that.

 

[Tigerstripe]

Tiger,

That IS the dilema. If a law is passed that allows confiscation, it is then legal to do so, until the law is overturned (if it ever is).

That is why I am so concerned. If it does become law, what will I do? I honestly do not know.

i know what ill do. if you want you can join my book club. we will get together and read about the old guys that kicked the british out of the US.

 

[wylie]

http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home_fi ... tter_1.pdf

 

[thebrasilian]

This article should not be trusted. I know of a couple of people that continually talking to these leaders (just a title not a royal). This news outlet in more conspiracy than fact. They sent questionnaires and appears to have made assumptions from statements. More information will be coming out from the AG. From a second hand source he mentioned that this was not his intent.

Now the opinion is that the AG is not totally faithful on 2A either. But he has a chance to address this article.

Mr. Lott was on Rush and Kelly's talk show a couple of weeks ago. I heard him say that no one should have an AR. That a shotgun is best for home protection. I hope that Richland County has someone that will run against him.

 

[Tigerstripe]

http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home_files/2nd%20Amendment%20Letter_1.pdf

i wonder if that list on the left is all of the Utah countys sherriffs.

 

[armaborealis]

The article is poorly written.

That said, all the SC AG is stating is that South Carolina is bound to respect any Constitutional Federal law. If the federal legislature passes a law which is signed by the President of the US, which is not overturned by the US Supreme Court, then it is the law of the land. For example, if the feds decree all semiautomatic firearms to be assault weapons which are banned, and the US Supreme Court concurs, then that's that. SC cannot lawfully defy such a law, nor can SC lawfully arrest federal officers attempting to enforce it.

If the states disagree with the US Supreme Court, then they have the power to force amendments to the Constitution.

Of course, ultimately might makes right. SC could arrest an ATF agent and see what happens. That movie got played out in the 1770s and 1860s. Patrick Henry stated that course of action rather eloquently:
?Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.?
That philosophy is EXACTLY why the 2A exists, as an ultimate check on the government by ensuring that the people are well armed. The founding fathers wrote extensively about this revolutionary philosophy.

The Federal government cannot force SC to carry out their bidding, however. For example, the Federal gov't cannot order SC law enforcement to enforce gun control laws. They can offer enticements ("help us enforce gun control laws and we will give you millions of dollars of federal grants to buy nice stuff for the police") but they cannot outright order state officials around. It would be very viable and legal for SC to pass a law stating that it is unlawful for any STATE official to assist in the enforcement of federal law in any manner. Then federal agents would basically be on their own to enforce any laws.

 

[carsontech]

Sort of on topic...
Just throwing some links out there for everyone following:

Patrick Henry
Against the Federal Constitution
June 5, 1788

The Anti-Federalist Papers



And my favorite:

Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

---
Lysander Spooner
NO TREASON
NO. VI.
THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY