Tom Knighton writing at Bearing Arms.

However, there are a couple of other bills that, if they pass, will put them squarely at odds with the federal government.

Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 7 would both create the Alabama Second Amendment Preservation Act. This act would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal law, or other legislation, regarding the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo.

The bills would also set up penalties for whatever agency violates the proposed bill. The penalty for a first offense is a class C misdemeanor with a fine no less than $500 or more than $5,000. For all other offenses, it is a class B misdemeanor with a fine no less than $1,000 or more than $7,000.

In other words, it’ll be much like Missouri’s law that went into effect earlier this year.

That law hasn’t really been tested in the courts yet, so we don’t know how that will go, so Alabama following suit may or may not be a great move for them.

However, there’s another bill that may cause far more problems.

A different bill, House Bill 13, would prohibit state law enforcement from enforcing any federal bill or other legislation pertaining to the regulation of firearms, firearm accessories or ammo, just like Senate Bill 2. However, this only pertains to those made and sold in Alabama.

Under existing constitution law, Congress is given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation.

Now, on the surface, this looks great for Alabama and I happen to agree with the reasoning behind this bill.

That said, Kansas passed a bill like this a while back. There are now people in prison because they figured the law would protect them, but the courts disagreed.

Alabama is free to pass the bill, of course, but if you live there and think that once it does, you can go out and build yourself a machinegun, well, I have some very bad news for you.

It should be noted that the prosecutions in Kansas have been upheld by the courts, so there’s no reason to believe Alabama residents would have any better luck.

Frankly, this is a bill that probably shouldn’t be passed. Yes, it’s pro-gun and yes, I agree with the reasoning and thinking behind it. However, there are people who will think this gives them license to do things that it really can’t. It’ll hurt good, decent people who simply don’t realize they’re doing anything wrong.

That doesn’t benefit anyone, I’m afraid, so it’s probably for the best if this doesn’t actually get passed.

I think Tom gets this wrong on every account, and this certainly isn’t the first or twentieth time I’ve disagreed with the folks at Bearing Arms, and it won’t be the last.

To begin with, yes Alabama should pass both of these bills and they should be signed by the governor.  First and foremost should be the constitutional carry bill, but if they get this far, they should pass the balance of the pro-2A bills as well.

But then Kansas passed such a law and people are in jail because of it, right?  Well, not so fast.  We covered it.  Kansas passed a 2A sanctuary law and I covered it.  It was more of a nullification law, and had the express purpose of allowing the purchase of NFA items without seeking approval of the controllers inside the beltway.  I said at the time that unless the governor was willing to send state and county police to arrest and imprison FedGov agents who attempted to make arrests in Kansas for said actions, it was weak tea and not really a nullification law.  Even the sponsor of the bill said that it mostly symbolic.

The Alabama bill seems a bit different, focusing on whether agents of the state can participate with FedGov agents in making such arrests.  They are taking incremental steps.  Some state is eventually going to have to broach this issue sooner or later, but until a governor is willing to battle FedGov agents, we’re left with what we’ve got.

I see the last sentence of the paragraph … “This bill would provide that firearms, ammo and firearm accessories that are made in the state and are only traded within the state are not subject to federal law or regulation” … is the tricky part.  I wouldn’t test that part of the bill, if indeed it has that proviso.  As for prohibiting agents of the state from aiding the enforcement of any new federal laws, Alabama can certainly do that, and Missouri has thus far been quite successful thus far in preventing cooperation with the FedGov, which is a good thing.  Finally, if this portends to be a weak nullification law, I see it as possibly targeting FedGov control over things like semi-automatics and AR-15s as anything else.

As for the Missouri law not being tested in court, I seriously doubt that the word of a federal court will stand as the law if the governor of the state makes it clear that the state law will be enforced, and that agents of the state who aid the FedGov will indeed lose their ability to work in law enforcement ever again.

That’s the whole point.  There are certain things a state can do regardless of what a federal court says.  This is one of them.

Alabama should pass both bills, but only after focusing first on a constitutional carry bill.

WSJ.

Texas is renewing a strategy that seeks to circumvent federal gun-control laws, one that lawmakers hope makes its way to the Supreme Court to test longstanding doctrine on gun regulation.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott gathered with Republican lawmakers at the Alamo Thursday to ceremonially sign several gun-related bills passed during the recent legislative session, including one making the open carry of handguns without a license legal, and another allowing state residents to buy Texas-made gun silencers without a federal license.

And when Kansas passed that law, I said beware because Kansas wasn’t serious and had no intention of protecting its citizens from FedGov overreach.

““Passing the bill is a first step,” said Rachel Malone, the Texas director of Gun Owners of America, an advocacy group. She said it could be years before silencers, also known as suppressors, can be bought and sold in Texas, because the measure needs to wend its way through federal courts.”

This is silly and trivial.  It misunderstands the point of nullification, and they may as well hang it up now.  The federal courts will never find in their favor, and the SCOTUS won’t hear the case.  Texans who make use of this law are set up to be hanged out to dry.

Nullification only has teeth if the state is prepare to ignore the rulings of federal courts and send agents of the state to arrest and imprison agents of the FedGov who attempt to enforce the laws which are the subject of nullification.

Ms. Malone has given up the case before it ever becomes a case.  This is nothing more than symbolism.  Call me when a state of really ready to do nullification the right way.

We’ve discussed nullification many times before, and this article shows the popularity of this concept, except without the teeth.

Last month, Effingham County, Illinois became a Second Amendment Sanctuary County. The proposal passed the County Board after eight members voted in favor of it. Only one was against, according to a USA Today report.

Last year, a similar proposal in Spokane Valley, WA was floated in the City Council. This comes as a response to the gun control proposals that many members of the U.S. Congress have made in recent years. Moreover, several states also passed firearm restrictions. Illinois and Washington are two of the most prominent ones.

Under said proposals, local law enforcement would ignore the new gun control policies. They would not arrest residents who don’t comply with the new state/federal firearm policies.

“It was a way of standing up for 2nd Amendment rights,” former Spokane Valley City Councilman Ed Pace told UnCut Report (UCR) in a recent interview. When Pace was in the City Council, he proposed making Spokane Valley, WA a 2nd Amendment Sanctuary City.

“If state and federal governments restrict constitutional rights, cities need to stand up for their residents and protect their rights,” Pace elaborated.

Oh bullshit.  What are you going to do with this symbolic action, and how are you going to “stand up for residents and protect their rights?”

What are you going to do, throw ATF agents in the state penitentiary when they come to arrest firearms owners?  Do the CLEOs side with you on this?  Does the governor side with you, and will the state police back you up?  Will you hang judges who hear cases on firearms owners who have broken federal laws?

Unless you answer those questions for me, this is a lot of hot air.

News4SA.com:

OLMOS PARK — The video has gone viral. Open Carry Texas President CJ Grisham and several other members were along the streets of Olmos Park protesting their right to carry a loaded gun.

Grisham and two other men were arrested by Olmos Park police, facing various charges including resisting arrest and assaulting a peace officer.

“He was legally carrying and they are drawing down on him like he is a terrorist, he had his hands up and he is backing away, which they will say he is resisting arrest, but doesn’t everyone back up from a threat,” said Open Carry Texas member Felix Cano.

Open Carry Texas says they were protesting a Olmos Park city ordinance that prohibited anyone other than law enforcement to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun on public streets. Thursday City Council voted unanimously to repeal that ordinance.

“The City of Olmos Park had from a long time ago put in place an ordinance that none of the current council members were involved with, regarding not allowing those two types of weapons to be loaded,” said Olmos Park City Council member Enzo Pellegrino.

Open Carry Texas says this was a victory for them.

“There shouldn’t be any more illegal arrests and throwing down Americans that are legally allowed to carry and putting other charges that don’t belong there,” said Cano.

“Open Carry Texas says this was a victory for them.”  Well I guess so.  It was indeed a victory for them.  I had followed this story from a distance, not knowing the back story behind it and not wanting to do the research necessary to understand it.

But this is the backstory.  It looks like the city of Olmos decided to engage in a little nullification themselves, being the little Napoleons they are.  Open carry is now legal in Texas, and while Olmos challenged that, Texas Open Carry decided to challenge Olmos.

Texas Open Carry won.  Good for them.  The city cannot make its own laws.

Tucson.com:

But the attorney who crafted it for Republican state Rep. David Stringer said that still won’t let Arizonans keep their “bump stocks” if the federal government declares them illegal.

The legislation spells out the kind of firearms the state believes are necessary for those who are members of the state militia. Existing Arizona law already says that automatically includes all “able-bodied citizens of the state” between 18 and 45.

And just to be sure that folks who turn 46 don’t lose their gun rights because of new federal laws, HB 2057 also would expand the definition of the militia to remove the maximum age. But it would add a new requirement that they be “capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

The measure — and a companion constitutional amendment — were introduced by Stringer who said he wants to ensure that whatever occurs in Washington doesn’t interfere with the right of law-abiding Arizonans to possess firearms.

But Stringer left it to attorney Michael Taylor, who has some expertise in the area of gun rights, to come up with the actual language. And Taylor said it is crafted to conform to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have upheld gun rights.

Courts will never decide in your favor, sir.  Never.  The festooned, robed tyrants will always decide for more communism.

That’s why this is toothless and powerless right out of the gate.  If you’re not willing to enforce this Arizona law by arresting ATF agents who enter the state and throwing them in the state penitentiary, and protecting your citizens by allowing them to purchase guns and ammunition regardless of form 4473 (which the FedGov will use to its advantage), then you’re setting your citizens up for illegalities and yourself up for failure and complete embarrassment.

You’re a loser.  Unless you act like you have some guts about this thing.  I have confidence you won’t do that, and neither will your fellow statesmen.

Great Falls Tribune:

The House of Representatives gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a bill meant to preserve Montanans’ right to bear arms by prohibiting the enforcement of any federal ban on firearms.

Senate Bill 99 would establish the “Montana Federal Firearm, Magazine, and Ammunition Ban Enforcement Prohibition Act.” The bill passed out of the Senate in February on a 30-20 vote.

Republican Rep. Seth Berglee is carrying the bill in the House for Republican Sen. Cary Smith.

“We did add a couple of amendments to it to allow for federal assistance, as long as it is not for the primary purpose of prohibiting, restricting or requiring any of the federal bans,” Berglee said.

At the bill’s first hearing in the House, lobbyist for School Administrators of Montana Patrick Audet opposed the bill. He says the bill would allow firearms on school campuses.

“If an officer couldn’t enforce that law, that would be a problem. We would be opposed to that,” Audet said.

Kansas had a similar law called the Second Amendment Protection Act.  Two gentlemen then got caught up in the web of cowardice when one of them fabricated and sold a suppressor, and the other one bought it.  Both men were found guilty of violation of the NFA.  And what did the brave patriots in Kansas do about it?  They did nothing.

I warned future “patriots” about this sort of thing.

I’ve said before, don’t even consider something like nullification unless you’re willing to go the mattresses for your people.  The lawmakers could have handed the governor the tools to deal with the federal intrusion, and the governor could have had the balls to do it.

But none of this obtained, and the citizens suffered as a result.  Unless you’re willing to arrest federal agents who attempt to enforce these laws and throw them in the state penitentiary with the other prisoners, don’t even consider nullification.

Nullification laws made for show are immoral.  Nullification laws made for real are admirable, but states have to be willing to back it all up with force.

I see no difference between suppressors and any other kind of firearm or associated equipment.  If Montana actually intends to enforce this law against federal agents who attempt to arrest people when they run afoul of federal laws, current or future, then I applaud this law.

On the other hand, if it’s another gimmick for votes or show-law for the purpose of making a statement, or in other words, if this law will have no teeth because Montana has the same kind of cowards in government and law enforcement as Kansas, then stop right here.

Don’t do it.  It’s time for a gut check for Montanans.  What will it be?

KTVH:

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday rejected arguments that a Kansas law can shield from federal prosecution anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state — a ruling that casts doubt on the legality of similar laws passed in nine states across the nation.

The decision handed down by U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten allows federal firearms charges against Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler to stand. The ruling clears the way for their sentencing on Monday.

Jurors in November returned eight guilty verdicts against Cox, the owner of Tough Guys gun store in Chanute, under the National Firearms Act for illegally making and marketing unregistered firearms, including a short-barreled rifle and gun silencers. Kettler was found guilty on one count of possession of an unregistered silencer.

The Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act, which passed in 2013, says firearms, accessories and ammunition manufactured and kept within the borders of Kansas are exempt from federal gun control laws. Kansas modeled its law on a Montana law that an appeals court has found to be invalid, according to court filings.

Similar firearm nullification laws have been signed into law in nine states. In addition to Montana and Kansas, other states having them include Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming, according to Everytown For Gun Safety, which advocates common-sense gun control laws.

Noting the significant interest the case against Cox and Kettler has generated in Kansas and beyond, Marten wrote in his 13-page decision that he is bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution and laws as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge then proceeded to cite those earlier rulings in rejecting every constitutional argument raised by the defense in the Kansas gun case.

“As a district court judge, I am not empowered to do what I think is most fair — I am bound to follow the law,” Marten wrote.

Defense attorneys argued that the National Firearms Act — a part of the Internal Revenue code enacted under Congress’ power to levy taxes — is unconstitutional because it amounts to “regulatory punishment” rather than imposition of a valid federal tax. They also contended that the federal law violated the Second Amendment as well as Tenth Amendment state rights protections of the U.S. Constitution.

But Marten was unpersuaded, noting that the nation’s highest court ruled 80 years ago that the National Firearms Act is valid exercise of Congressional taxing power. As such, it supersedes a state law, he said. Marten also rejected the Second Amendment arguments raised.

This has been a horrible disaster for not only the defendants but for the concept of nullification generally.  As we’ve discussed before, state legislators who make nullification laws for the purpose of making a statement of protest before the voters are cowards and are doing no service to anyone except themselves.

Second, the jury had their turn at the wheel as well.  Apparently, they weren’t ready to see the states put the federal government in its place.  But the ideas that this tax would have ever occurred, or that the federal government had the right to legislate anything concerning firearms would have been considered abominable 150 years ago.  Unfortunately, there are too many collectivists among us today to trust that jury nullification would be an effective remedy against federal power.  Again.  Consider this.  A jury of their peers had a shot at this and refused to do anything about it other than kowtow to the federal government.

Finally, the federal judge found that they broke federal laws.  What else do you expect a federal judge to do?  For state lawmakers to have any effect with these laws, much more needs to be done.  An education needs to take place with the people, and laws need to be enacted that essentially prevents federal agents from doing the job of arresting people like the defendants.  Throw a few fedgov agents in the state penitentiary with the general prison population for attempting to arrest the defendants, and you might have a different outcome.

Finally, the state police would have to be on board and ready to conduct whatever operations the governor needs in order to prevent federal policing in this matter, up to and including things like imprisoning federal agents (such as the IRS) if the fedgov attempted to use those employees as punitive agents.  Of course, from here it could go to withholding federal education funds, the state withholding taxes to the fedgov, and on and on it escalates.

Like I said to state lawmakers, unless you’re serious about nullification, don’t bother with the drama shows.  You’re just a preening coward.

The Trace:

Three years ago, in a move intended to signal its profound devotion to gun rights — and opposition to new restrictions being weighed by Congress — the Kansas legislature passed a law that never had any chance of actually taking force.

The “Second Amendment Protection Act” declared that federal laws and regulations do not apply to any gun manufactured in the state, so long as it is marked “Made in Kansas” and remains within the state’s borders at all times after its production.

The law — which, again, was invalid from the outset — also applied to ammunition and firearm accessories made in Kansas. It declared that federal law enforcement agents would be guilty of a felony if they attempted to enforce federal laws regarding these products within state borders.

It’s clear now that the legislators who pushed forward the law were well aware of the unresolvable conflict with federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and that they assumed that Kansans would understand that the act was meant to send a message, not to be taken literally.

But some Kansas gun sellers and buyers apparently didn’t get the memo.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans the unlicensed possession, manufacture, and sale of silencers, machine guns, and sawed-off shotguns. Many gun enthusiasts argue that the restrictions on silencers are outdated, and that the devices eliminate noise pollution and may stave off hearing damage.

Shane Cox ran a military surplus store in southeastern Kansas, and after the law took effect, he began producing and selling his own silencers. He assured buyers that federal gun laws would not apply as long as the products stayed within state borders and even handed out copies of the new statute.

Jeremy Kettler, a disabled U.S. Army veteran, bought one of the silencers and posted a video about it on Facebook. Both men were soon charged with violating the federal laws that regulate silencers. Kettler bought the unregistered silencer “because of a piece of paper signed by the governor saying it was legal,” the Associated Press reported.

The Kansas statute purported to nullify federal law, much as states like South Carolina had attempted to do prior to the Civil War. But the Supreme Court has ruled that states simply don’t have this authority.

[ … ]

One of the bill’s co-sponsors, former state representative Jim Howell, told the AP that lawmakers knew the measure’s validity would be disputed. “I think these gentlemen understood that when they made a choice to do what they did,” Howell said, of the men arrested over the sale of silencers.

What a cowardly piss ant.  The legislator who pressed this threw his own citizens to the lions when it came to pushing and shoving, and Kansas buckled.

The author is an attorney for the Brady Center, and other than the discussion of the validity of nullification, I actually agree with him for different reasons.  The real culprit here is the state of Kansas.

I’ve said before, don’t even consider something like nullification unless you’re willing to go the mattresses for your people.  The lawmakers could have handed the governor the tools to deal with the federal intrusion, and the governor could have had the balls to do it.

But none of this obtained, and the citizens suffered as a result.  Unless you’re willing to arrest federal agents who attempt to enforce these laws and throw them in the state penitentiary with the other prisoners, don’t even consider nullification.

Nullification laws made for show are immoral.  Nullification laws made for real are admirable, but states have to be willing to back it all up with force.

Is that what this is?

A state law that exempts firearms manufactured in Kansas from all federal regulations has drawn a lot of attention recently — from both supporters and critics.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has filed a lawsuit about the 2013 law that declares the federal government has no authority to regulate guns, ammunition and accessories manufactured, sold and kept in Kansas. The Brady Center said the law is an unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal gun laws.

Gov. Sam Brownback’s re-election campaign used the lawsuit as a springboard to send out a fundraising email saying the Brady Center was suing the governor “for protecting the Second Amendment rights of Kansans.”

Regardless of which side of this debate you’re on, the “Second Amendment Protection Act” certainly raises some interesting issues.

The statute makes it a felony for any federal employee to enforce federal gun regulations on Kansas only-weapons. It also says no state or local officials can attempt to enforce any federal gun regulations on Kansas-only weapons.

The Brady Center lawsuit already guarantees that this state law is headed to federal court. What will happen if the state tries to charge a federal official with a felony for trying to enforce a federal law?

The law declares that Kansas-only guns are exempt from any federal regulations. So what, if any, regulations will those firearms be subject to? Will Kansas manufacturers now be allowed to make guns without serial numbers, making it difficult to trace any gun involved in a crime? Can they legally make guns that can elude mental detectors or other security devices? Can such guns be sold without the background checks required by federal law? …

It’s pretty obvious that the Second Amendment Protection Act was intended more as a political protest than as a practical benefit for Kansans. Only time will tell how many tax dollars the state will spend to defend a law that has little chance of standing up to constitutional scrutiny.

I don’t know if the fine people of Kansas have the brawn to take this to its logical conclusion or not.  If it’s political grandstanding as the editorial says, then they wasted their time and made a mockery of themselves and the legislative process.  If they intend to fold like a cheap tent at the first sign of a federal judge who has become indignant over this, then they should have stayed home.  Their laws are worthless, and that means that the folks in Kansas have no reason to respect the other laws any more than the feds respect this one.  It’s one sure way to lose the mandate of heaven.

But … if they intend to press the issue, then this will stand out as a great case study in nullification.  Nullification could be interpreted as state nullification of onerous federal laws, or jury nullification of prosecutor’s cases in federal court by turning their heads.  After all, federal laws are meaningless if not enforced, and actual, real people must enforce them.

What will happen “if the state tries to charge a federal official with a felony for trying to enforce a federal law?”  The federal official should be put in the state penitentiary with the general prison population for breaking state laws, and state law enforcement shouldn’t cower to federal LEOs while they’re doing this.

The answer to all of the questions about what will happen if, when and how, is that state laws, whatever they are at the time, will be enforced and federal laws will be ignored.  Question(s) posed, question(s) answered without fuss.  But there is the dark possibility that the editorial page has the politicians’ number.  Will they show themselves to be all bark and no bite?  The folks in Kansas might want to frame the issue for their representatives, if you know what I mean.

In Idaho, “Republicans resurrected a measure to punish Idaho law enforcement officers who help confiscate federally banned firearms, fearing President Barack Obama’s administration could try to take their guns … Hagedorn says this year’s measure is “much friendlier” to law enforcement, though it calls for a civil penalty of $1,000 for those found guilty.”  A fine is “weak tea” for a true nullification law.

Attention in Kansas is focused down the food chain rather than the other direction.  “A Kansas House committee is taking up legislation stripping cities and counties of any power to regulate guns or block the open carrying of firearms.”

Finally, a bill has made its way through the Senate in Missouri (again) on nullification.  “Missouri senators endorsed legislation on Tuesday that seeks to nullify U.S. gun restrictions and send federal agents to jail for enforcing such laws, though the measure would likely face a court challenge if it gets approved in the state.”

This is just as I’ve recommended (State prison time for federal agents), although if it goes to federal court and is overturned (as it would certainly be in federal court), then it was never really a nullification law at all.  Federal court rulings would have to be ignored in order to meet the definition of a nullification law.

But now from the factual to the comical.  If you live in one of these states or if you endorse such an idea, Adam Weinstein thinks you’re a redneck.

Since the time of John Calhoun in South Carolina, nullification doctrine—the fancy-bred, college-educated stepbrother of those mental deficients, the militia and sovereign citizen movements—has held that America’s several states have the right to nullify federal laws that infringe on their constitutional liberties. Unless we’re talking about the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment rights of minorities in these nullificationist states, in which case their freedom is totally treading on our freedom, dude.

But no matter. Liberty-loving bears of small brain have found a five-syllable word, and it must necessarily lead to their promised land. Kansas and Alaska have already passed gun nullification laws, while Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Missouri have been pushing. Nine states, led by Montana, have passed laws asserting that gunmakers in their states are exempt from federal regulations, and so they can make all the full-auto machine guns and assault weapons they want.

The real fun comes when local politicians and law enforcement officers get in the nullification game: Nearly 250 sheriffs from Oregon to California to Arizona to Minnesota have written open letters defying federal gun laws and threatening to arrest U.S. government officials working in their jurisdictions. One rural Florida sheriff even beat prosecution last fall for releasing (and destroying evidence related to) a suspect who’d illegally held a concealed weapon.

It’s fun times in America when libertarians and John Birchers are openly praising law enforcement officers for picking and choosing which laws they’ll enforce, you know, to protect the good, law-abiding folk from federal interference. What could go wrong?

Right after that are pictures of blacks being brutalized over civil rights protests.  What else would you expect out of Gawker, right?  A false analogy between civil rights and a supposed right to take weapons away from the citizens, eh, so what?

To Adam, it’s all about invoking emotion rather than making any kind of rational argument.  It’s okay if the argument is self defeating because Adam happened to ignore the fact that gun owners are fighting for their rights too.  As long as Adam can hurl an insult, it was a good day.

One commenter makes the following remark:

Yes, they’ve been trying this on every law they don’t like

They should all be informed that the FBI will be paying them a visit, with swat (sic) teams if necessary should they pull this.

It’s reall (sic) time we joined the civilized world and eliminated state government. They’re always howling that were one nation under god. Well, one nation has one set of laws. At the same time we remove gerrymandering. Put in place huge restrictions with huge penalties to, (sic) prevent it happening again. And add additional senators to strip the power of the rednecks to obstruct and abuse.

The south (sic) was never punished for the civil war. Hardly a man even was out on probation for their treason, and that’s why we have the problems we have today. It’s a good tine to start. And it’s a better time to stop,folimf (sic) lawsuits, and arrest, arrest, arrest.

Another commenter remarks:

I guarantee you that these are the same knuckleheads that also vote for laws that allow teachers to lead prayers in schools under the guise of “freedom from religious persecution.”

Concerning the second commenter, not necessarily.  For instance, I strongly advocate home schooling (partially) in order to avoid indoctrination into statist, collectivist thinking like yours.  You never got the chance to decide on prayer in my school and I didn’t have to convince your ilk of anything.  I had my own school.

Concerning the first commenter, this is a bit more serious.  He is unabashedly advocating open, unmitigated war.  I never did and still do not believe that firearms owners or patriots will fire the first shot.  But if the second is fired in self defense, it won’t be just one shot by one person.

And it won’t come from just one gun.  The commenter may want to reconsider armchair generalship, and think hard about issuing orders he wouldn’t obey himself because he is a coward, while he sends tens of thousands of men to their deaths.  To be sure, it would be a bloody war.  The collectivists are advised to consider the costs.