New Hampshire Challenges Federal Gov't on 2nd Amend.

[variablebinary]

It's only a matter of time...You push enough, and expect push back...

NEW HAMPSHIRE THROWING DOWN THE GAUNTLET TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

February 3, 2009

Here is a copy of House Resolution 6 being discussed by the New Hampshire Legislature.

It certainly sets some limitations on the Presidency and the Congress.

New Hampshire HCR 6 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles...

...That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...

[1 Source]

Live Free or Die Bitches!

[Sttrongbow]

quote]Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...[/quote]

This is absolutely ridiculous. New Hampshire does not get to decide when or if the Constitution is negated. It's just laughable. This could have been a meaningful statement in support of the 2A, instead it turned into a fruit loopy rant without force or meaning.

FWIW, I think this resolutoin goes absolutely NOWHERE.

[joffe]

Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...

This is absolutely ridiculous. New Hampshire does not get to decide when or if the Constitution is negated. It's just laughable. This could have been a meaningful statement in support of the 2A, instead it turned into a fruit loopy rant without force or meaning.

FWIW, I think this resolutoin goes absolutely NOWHERE.

They get to decide whether or not THEIR contract with the federal government is negated. I.e. secession.

[mmike87]

quote]Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...

This is absolutely ridiculous. New Hampshire does not get to decide when or if the Constitution is negated. It's just laughable. This could have been a meaningful statement in support of the 2A, instead it turned into a fruit loopy rant without force or meaning.

FWIW, I think this resolutoin goes absolutely NOWHERE.[/QUOTE]


It's still cool that stuff like this is being brought up.

[beaker]

Yeah, going nowhere, but still..... I love my state.

For the most part, anyway. All those damn MA terraformers moving up here because their state is in the crapper, and then voting the same way they did in MA. Jerks.

[Sttrongbow]

They get to decide whether or not THEIR contract with the federal government is negated. I.e. secession.

First, that's not what the resolution says.

Second, no they don't. I refer you to the precendent set by Sherman V. Georgia.

[Buckaroo]

I stand with my brothers in NH in principle and support their cause.

I will be sending a letter expressing my support to the NH House and to the Governor today.

Live Free or Die indeed.


Buckaroo

[thopkins22]

First, that's not what the resolution says.

Second, no they don't. I refer you to the precendent set by Sherman V. Georgia.

If they're reaffirming Jeffersonian principles, then it certainly is what they're saying.

Is it irrelevant? Yes probably, because as you pointed out, if they try and act on it the US will burn their state to the ground, and kill their citizens relentlessly. But it's impressive to me that they're taking a stand for liberty in these times where the constitution is regularly ignored.

How could it be a more meaningful statement?

[A-Bear680]

How many co-sponsors , in the House and also how many for any counterpart bill in the Senate.
Out of how many members?