Revived! State law banishing D.C. gun rules

The case before the 9th circuit on the Montana Firearms Freedom Act can stop the gun grabbers cold in their tracks.

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, confirmed that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in the MSSA v. Holder case for March 4 in Portland, Ore.

You absolutely MUST read this entire article. The arguments are irrefutable. 

This is all a matter of court record, and the case is airtight.  


Read more at:
 http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/revived-state-law-banishing-d-c-gun-rules/#AThT4gVOGE6R7hcp.99 

This is the perfect case to finish what Richard Mack and Jay Printz started when they beat the Brady Bill in the 90s.  

In perhaps the most recent and powerful Tenth Amendment decision in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Mack/Printz v U.S. that "States are not subject to federal direction." But today's federal Tories argue that the "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government is supreme and thus, trumps the States in all matters. Wrong! 
The supremacy clause is dealt with in Mack/Printz, in which the Supreme Court stated once and for all that the only thing "supreme" is the constitution itself. 
Our constitutional system of checks and balances certainly did not make the federal government king over the states, counties, and cities. Justice Scalia opined for the majority in Mack/Printz, that "Our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other." 
So yes, it is the duty of the State to stop the Obamacare "incursion." To emphasize this principle Scalia quotes James Madison, "The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the Supremacy, no more subject within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere." 

The point to remember here is; where do we define the "sphere" of the federal government? That's right; in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and anything not found within this section belongs to the States or to the People. So where does health care belong? The last place it belongs is with the President or Congress It is NOT their responsibility, and the States need to make sure that Obama does not overstep his authority. 
Just in case there is any doubt as to what the Supreme Court meant, let's take one more look at Mack/Printz. "This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution's structural protections of liberty. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other..." What? The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, has as a "structural protection of liberty" that States will keep the federal government in check? No wonder it was called a system of "checks and balances." The States (and Counties) are to maintain the balance of power by keeping the feds within their proper sphere. 

Read this whole article by Richard Mack here:
http://www.paulstramer.net/2009/11/states-can-stop-obama.html