Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Nonsensical bill

May 22, 2013

I read today, with dismay, another front page story concerning Rep. Daryl Metcalfe's nonsensical Defense of the 2nd amendment bill....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(22)

gavinf56

May-22-13 5:30 AM

"For a man who claims to be such an expert on the constitution, he demonstrates a staggering lack of knowledge of the fact that state nullification laws have been declared unconstitutional for more than 150 years." - Russell Gula

Somebody should tell Colorado that as they pass HB-1317, which proposes proposes the regulatory framework for legal marijuana.

18 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

May-22-13 6:14 AM

Somebody should tell the President as well. He has stated in the past which laws he will push to be enforced and which Federal laws that he does not agree with, therefore he will not push to enforce! The States are just attempting to lay it out in plain sight with these laws that they don't intend on enforcing Federal laws that they didn't agree with in the first place.

19 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tedeaux

May-22-13 6:15 AM

Somebody should tell the President as well. He has stated in the past which laws he will push to be enforced and which Federal laws that he does not agree with, therefore he will not push to enforce! The States are just attempting to lay it out in plain sight with these laws that they don't intend on enforcing Federal laws that they didn't agree with in the first place.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

May-22-13 7:05 AM

Yeah the right wing in legislations are all busy with stupid bills in the meantime real problems get ignore.

1 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-22-13 7:30 AM

Gavin correctly shows liberal hypocrisy.

When a state declares it is free from federal marijuana laws, it is applauded.

When a state declares it is free from federal firearm laws, it is derided.

This is the selective nature of liberalism rather than consistent, equal protection under the law that this nation was founded upon.

18 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

May-22-13 7:44 AM

Mr. Gula

Sen. Toomeys Bill did little but to "pander" in the same manner as you proclaim that Rep. Mirabito is doing in your LTE. While he was busy trying to pass bills that do no more than laws already enacted, he should have proposed making murder illegal... again.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

michaelpaternostro

May-22-13 8:34 AM

Mr Reeder, "

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

michaelpaternostro

May-22-13 8:37 AM

C reeder, "real problems get ignored" you mean like Benghazi, AP, and all of the other garbage this administration has produced? The left would apparently have done anything to get Obama reelected. True colors are gleaming right now.

15 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

May-22-13 9:05 AM

Perhaps Mr. Gula could elaborate how stricter gun laws that keep firearms out of the hands of the law abiding keeps the criminals from obtaining them. Does he believe that some dude wants to use a gun for crime will go down to the local gun store and purchase one? If that were the case these idiotic attempts to usurp my freedom may work, but since nearly all gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons such attempts are futile. Just ask DC and Chicago how well their strict gun laws work. What a bunch of hooey!

12 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

May-22-13 9:10 AM

Not only do real problems get ignored by the Administration and DOJ, they simply tell everyone that they didn't know that anything was wrong. But the media is quick to drum up the fact that those nasty Republicans now have something to go after the Democrats with. When Republicans do something wrong, it's a scandal, when the Democrats do it, it's a political opportunity for Republicans.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SDS887

May-22-13 9:14 AM

Thank you for this very well written letter. The subject has been driving me crazy. The other commenters don't seem to want to do any research into the facts, and simply want to repeat talking points. The bill proposed in Pa is a general nullification bill. The marijuana laws are very specific, and it needs to be noted that the federal government does continue to raid marijuana farms in those states. The difference is that Colorado and Washington are working *with* the federal government, while Pennsylvania is just offering up a belligerent bill to oppose anything the Feds pass. It is pandering. And unconstitutional.

1 Agrees | 13 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

May-22-13 9:32 AM

How does one "work with" the Federal Government to sell or possess a substance that the Federal Government says is a crime to sell or possess?

9 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

May-22-13 9:34 AM

...and if CO or WA refuse to enforce the Federal law, how is that not the same as nullification?

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

May-22-13 9:34 AM

...and if CO or WA refuse to enforce the Federal law, how is that not the same as nullification?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

May-22-13 9:56 AM

Nice letter Mr. Gula. You have an actual reason. people here don't really read the newspaper. It's sad.

0 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-22-13 10:26 AM

Ah, Spike2....calling everyone uneducated is beneath you.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

distantobsvr

May-22-13 12:07 PM

Amazing how misinformed some are

The CO law was a referendum, passed by the people, not the General Assembly and it does NOT void federal law. Fed agents can arrested for any amount marijuana. Under Amendment 64 amounts less than one ounce and 6 plants are legal under STATE laws.

The Feds have arrested some individuals for possession. They have decided that arresting people for less than an ounce is not the best use of their time or resources. This amendment does doesn’t seek to void a federal law; it decriminalizes it on the STATE level.

This is a huge difference than voiding a law passed by congress and signed into law by the president. Only the Supreme Ct. can determine if the law is unconstitutional not states. If the court does not and the state tries to void it like this legislator is proposing… is simply waste time and resources to pander to a segment of his voting bloc. It has been settled law for more than two hundred years, states can NOT void federal laws.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-22-13 12:20 PM

Can one of you "enlightened" liberals show me where in the Constitution it says the federal gov't can regulate marijuana?

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

May-22-13 1:41 PM

distantobsvr - 12:07 PM

"Amazing how misinformed some are"

Amendment 64: Colorado voters AMENDED the STATE CONSTITUTION in 2012 by passing Amendment 64 and making the limited possession and private recreational use of marijuana legal under Colorado law.

Amazing how misinformed some are....

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

May-22-13 2:50 PM

If liberals really believed federal law trumps state law, then the Defense of Marriage Act would be unquestioned and these state laws on gay marriage would be nullified.

But, that does not fit with their agenda......even though it was Bill Clinton who supported and signed the DOMA.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

May-22-13 3:50 PM

"So, politically he has nothing to lose. "

--

Well now, this I disagree with.

HB357 is so badly written that even if some agreement came to pass in which all 435 Representatives and all 100 Senators voted together to fix the broken background checks system, HB357 would still make enforcement of that law a crime punishable by jail time.

Mirabito doesn't just support the law, he is a cosponsor.

We'll see come next year's primary if Mirabito had anything to lose. I say there is no way he gets a pass on this. No way.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

distantobsvr

May-23-13 10:59 AM

“USA Born…” Your point is what? As I stated it was passed by the people. For your information a referendum in Colorado is a direct change to the State Constitution thus it becomes law. What was not factual? I guess your blindness due to your political leanings no know bounds. Since I happened to be a Colorado resident for many years, I do know firsthand about Amendment 64 and how it passed. In fact I voted in that election. Your political righteousness seems to blind you to anyone who you think disagrees with you. When in fact I neither said I supported or not supported any position. I simply stated KNOWN facts about the law. Show me one case that a state voided a law as unconstitutional and it was upheld.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 22 of 22 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web