Wicked Commentary

The Louisiana House of Representatives just passed two controversial bills that are now on their way to the state Senate. The two bills, passed with a large majority of support, shields gun owners from restrictions from the federal government. The first bill, known as the “Louisiana preservation of individual gun rights of citizens act”, would make it illegal for the president to enforce gun restrictions in the state of louisiana. The second bill makes it illegal for anyone to release personal information associated with concealed carry permits. Could Louisiana even enforce this law if it were to pass?

The passage of House Bill 5 through the house was a statement that state lawmakers are willing to do anything to protect the rights of gun owners in Louisiana, even if what they’re doing might be considered unconstitutional.

How can this be unconstitutional?  It is the state trying to protect their 2nd Amendment rights?  But, of course we have a professor who answers this question as follows:

UL Lafayette professor and KATC political analyst Dr. Pearson Cross says, “Southern states and other states will try to pass these laws, they will pass these laws, these laws will probably be found to be unconstitutional in court cases.”

Cross says even if it passes the senate, the law could be stricken down because it ignores the U.S Constitution’s “Supremecy Clause”.

Cross adds, “There’s the ‘Supremecy Clause’, that little uncomfortable thing in the Constitution that says that the laws of the U.S., of the Constitution, and passed by Congress supercede anything that states do either in the Constitution of the state legislatures.”

I  have a bit of trouble of understanding this professor’s analysis.  How can a state who is protecting the 2nd Amendment be called “unconstitutional” when Congress would be “unconstitutionally” violating their oaths to the Constitution with their gun restrictions?

The 2nd Amendment like we all know so well states, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

For me this sounds a bit insane.  Every Congress member took an oath to the Constitution and that means the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment contained within it. 

We already have gun laws on the books.  For example felons not being allowed to own a gun, but those laws are not enforced.  Now Congress wants to fiddle around once again with more gun laws that apply to law abiding and responsible gun owners.  Like I’ve said over and over what is it that Congress and this professor that they don’t understand, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

The other day I looked up the Kentucky Constitution and in it contains “the right to own and bear guns”. 

Am I misunderstanding this professor?  I am not sure I get what he is saying, but once again he is probably a liberal professor as almost all of them are.

http://www.katc.com/news/louisiana-s-gun-control-restrictions-passed-in-senate/#_

Advertisements

Comments on: "Louisiana’s Gun Control Restrictions Passed in Senate" (9)

  1. goshawk3 said:

    This professor Pearson is full of shiite. I looked up the “Supremacy law” and the so-called professor is trying to twist the meaning like they always do. The two issue’s below explain.
    “The federal law is invalid if the pres. or Congress violated the Constitution.” (They do everyday!)

    Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it
    provides that the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

    Two issues arise when State Action is in apparent conflict with federal law. The first is whether the congressional action falls within the powers granted to Congress. If Congress exceeded its authority, the congressional act is invalid and, despite the Supremacy Clause, has no priority over state action.

    The second issue is whether Congress intended its policy to supersede state policy. Congress often acts without intent to preempt state policy making or with an intent to preempt state policy on a limited set of issues. Congress may intend state and federal policies to coexist.

    Like

  2. Thanks for looking into the supremacy clause, Gos. Seems that it is becoming more and more important as the federal gov pushes the envelope on what they can mandate. I think that your first point is extremely important, but is not always so clear-cut. I mean that Congress (especially when the dems are in the majority) may create a law which may or may not be truly constitutional. We may see it as obviously not constitutional, but the Supremes may rule otherwise. Thus we are at the mercy of Barack Obama again since as soon as he gets the opportunity, he will name a liberal to the bench – which will result in laws that may REALLY be unconstitutional being ruled constitutional by a liberal court. So what is REALLY constitutional ends up being what the SC says it is – and that can be influenced by the political leaning of the court. Sorry if that didn’t make sense, but I’m in a hurry right now and don’t have time to reconstruct it.

    Like

    • goshawk3 said:

      Garnet.

      You make perfect sense. And you can imagine how many unconstitutional laws are in existance today that the politicians slipped by us. Knowing they were unconstitutional but
      (rightly figured) the people would not no the difference.

      And look now,with the GOP controling Congress You can bet that all the politicians know that Treason is being committed on several levels still do nothing to stop it. I guess like always they figure the people still won’t know the difference.

      Like

  3. The professor should quit. If he is teaching students this crap, they or their parents, need to DEMAND a refund.

    Like

    • clyde,

      I agree. My brother’s youngest daughter went to a liberal university. She came out a flaming liberal. Not the way she was before she went there. My brother who is a conservative should ask for his money back for the university ruining his daughter indoctrinating here.

      Like

    • clyde,

      I’m sure you know this already but in the course of this conversation it may be something to think about.

      That is, the liberals love to try and make their lies appear as the Gospel truth. So to further deceive they attach their lie to some so-called authority.like this professor. I mean how can you possibly doubt the word of this highly esteemed professor!

      Or they use science as a back up, even though all of these so-called elites have been ‘proven’ phony. Like Global Warming for instance. The liberals try to shut down the argument by claiming “It’s settled science!”

      Like

  4. Gar Swaffar said:

    Not to be outdone, MY state legislature is on the verge of passing new regulations and appropriations measures to ensure California can confiscate the weapons of those who are deemed to be “Unlawful gun owners” – including the folks who the state deems to be “mentally unstable”
    Making it of course a situation where the word “is” must be defined, once again.

    Like

  5. I do not believe the Louisiana laws would be found unconstitutional because of a “Supremacy Clause”.
    Any law prohibiting the bearing of arms IS AN INFRINGMENT. Any law regulating any firearm, firearm magazine or ammunition is an infringement that started with the FFA of the ’30’s. Because criminals were using fully automatic weapons the law was passed prohibiting Americans from owning such Funny thing. The criminals didn’t pay any attention. Then as now. And just where does the government get its ability to decide what kind of weapon or bullet magazine you don’t need?
    The people have rolled over and said nothing about these laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms for way too long.
    Having to get a CCW to exercise your right is an infringement. Or why should you have to get permission from the state to exercise your right?

    Like

    • Buck,

      You are absolutely right on all points. I keep going back to the 2nd Amendment and what is states, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

      btw, it’s good to see ya again Buck.

      Like

We welcome all comments, opinions, rants, raves, and humor too

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: