Author Topic: States that balk at nation's gun laws could lose federal funds (Read 8477 times)

PTK · « **on:** February 24, 2011, 02:33:06 PM »

States that balk at nation's gun laws could lose federal funds

By Jonathan Lemire
Daily News Staff Writer

Link

Okay, what? 90% of Federal funding cut if a state refuses to comply with gun laws?

WHERE does this clown think the Federal funds come from? Pixies? Unicorns? Remove 90% of the funding and see how many states bother sending money TO the Feds in the first place...

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #1 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:36:20 PM »

So how much Federal tax is sucked out of the states and their citizens? If the Feds suspend the various program funds being paid back to the states, just divert all those Fed taxes back to the state to replace them.

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:36:58 PM »

This is aimed squarely at Montana, the 10th amendment movement, and Tea Party States.

Sounds like old Chuck actually WANTS another War of Succession.

PTK · « **Reply #3 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:37:52 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on February 24, 2011, 02:36:20 PM

So how much Federal tax is sucked out of the states and their citizens? If the Feds suspend the various program funds being paid back to the states, just divert all those Fed taxes back to the state to replace them.

Pretty much my thought, too - "Oh, you're keeping 90%? Okay, here's 10% of what we were going to pay you. Take care, now."

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:40:39 PM »

Quote from: PTK on February 24, 2011, 02:37:52 PM

Pretty much my thought, too - "Oh, you're keeping 90%? Okay, here's 10% of what we were going to pay you. Take care, now."

Taxes aren't collected that way. The State in question would have to re-draft their tax collection methods, and win over all business HR/payroll departments in the State somehow.

Each of those businesses would then be slapped with a lawsuit by Holder.

But, Chuck's bill won't go anywhere anyways. You've seen the make-up of the House nowadays, haven't you?

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #5 on:** February 24, 2011, 02:46:13 PM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on February 24, 2011, 02:40:39 PM

Each of those businesses would then be slapped with a lawsuit by Holder.

In the words of a military officer whose name I can not recall at this time, "it takes boots on the ground to hold territory." Holder can wail and flap his arms, but if a State was determined to defy him, and had the support of it's local LEO's and militia's he would have a hard time enforcing his will. Obviously National Guard and Reserve troops can not automatically be expected to side with the State, considering the whole integration into the Federal military system they've experienced over the past century and reinforced by the past decade in particular.

Balog · « **Reply #6 on:** February 24, 2011, 03:44:51 PM »

So no fed.gov funds for Chicago until it complies with Heller and MacDonald? Sweet.

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #7 on:** February 24, 2011, 03:46:27 PM »

Quote from: Balog on February 24, 2011, 03:44:51 PM

So no fed.gov funds for Chicago until it complies with Heller and MacDonald? Sweet.

With the lack of action against the ATF, I doubt it. Selective prosecution at it's ugliest.

Balog · « **Reply #8 on:** February 24, 2011, 03:48:59 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on February 24, 2011, 03:46:27 PM

With the lack of action against the ATF, I doubt it. Selective prosecution at it's ugliest.

Yeah I know, just a nice dream. Still, either this is shot down or it sets the law in place for future (non-leftist) administrations to say "Yeah, that 2nd Amendment? Actually not kidding about that." which would be cool.

HankB · « **Reply #9 on:** February 24, 2011, 04:08:18 PM »

Hmmm . . . once Federal funds are cut, the Feds don't have much of a club to hold over a state's head to enforce compliance with unfunded mandates, right?

kgbsquirrel · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2011, 04:14:00 PM »

Quote from: HankB on February 24, 2011, 04:08:18 PM

Hmmm . . . once Federal funds are cut, the Feds don't have much of a club to hold over a state's head to enforce compliance with unfunded mandates, right?

Pretty much. After saying "Naughty, bad state, now do what you're told!" their only recourse of physical action is either taking away the 'carrot' (the Fed funds) or applying the 'stick' (arrest, prosecution, armed troops). If they've taken away the carrot already, or find they no longer have a carrot to take away (the state's withholding the federal taxes for themselves) that leaves only the stick.

PTK · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2011, 04:30:22 PM »

Quote from: kgbsquirrel on February 24, 2011, 04:14:00 PM

Pretty much. After saying "Naughty, bad state, now do what you're told!" their only recourse of physical action is either taking away the 'carrot' (the Fed funds) or applying the 'stick' (arrest, prosecution, armed troops). If they've taken away the carrot already, or find they no longer have a carrot to take away (the state's withholding the federal taxes for themselves) that leaves only the stick.

...the stick that is funded via the taxes collected by the states in question. :D

RevDisk · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2011, 08:51:02 AM »

Uhm. Yay?

When you take the King's shilling, you are the King's man. States that rely on routine federal funding grants are making a pretty big assumption that that check is always going to come. With said "funding" usually comes requirements that the state has to spend money as well. A couple folks refused the stimulus money for that reason. It came with provisions that if the feds give you money for project X, after Y years of fed funding, the state has to pay for X entirely for a further Z years.

Even funded mandates are not a free lunch.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2011, 09:01:32 AM »

The only way to throw off the shackles of federalisim is to repeal the 16th amendment.

CSM Kersh · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2011, 09:32:45 AM »

FWIW, I'd like to see CHLs treated like driver's licenses - good in any state.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2011, 09:39:29 AM »

Quote from: CSM Kersh on February 25, 2011, 09:32:45 AM

FWIW, I'd like to see CHLs treated like driver's licenses - good in any state.

That would be nice, but who's CHL will be the model? California? Virginia? Alaska?

There's a huge range. I would be happy with a minimum of Virginia-level CHL nationwide, but having California-style would be a huge downgrade for me.

Alaska-carry nationwide is a pipedream at the moment. I'd rather keep the patchwork quilt we have today.

Chris

CSM Kersh · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2011, 09:50:16 AM »

Chris, we don't have a model for driver's licenses, so why have one for CHLs? If you're golden in your home state, your golden in any state.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #17 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:00:35 AM »

Quote from: CSM Kersh on February 25, 2011, 09:50:16 AM

Chris, we don't have a model for driver's licenses, so why have one for CHLs? If you're golden in your home state, your golden in any state.

You would think the NRA would step up and defend nation-wide CCW as part of the full faith and credit clause. The sticky point would be if you're a resident of a non-carry state, you're hosed in your home state.

P5 Guy · « **Reply #18 on:** February 25, 2011, 07:51:48 PM »

WHERE does this clown think the Federal funds come from? Pixies? Unicorns? Remove 90% of the funding and see how many states bother sending money TO the Feds in the first place...

In Florida Gov. Scott has refused the $2.4 billion for "high speed rail". This could be a great start. Except then New Jersey will get all our tax dollars.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #19 on:** February 25, 2011, 08:31:46 PM »

Quote from: CSM Kersh on February 25, 2011, 09:50:16 AM

Chris, we don't have a model for driver's licenses, so why have one for CHLs? If you're golden in your home state, your golden in any state.

The reason for that is the similarity of the automobile laws state to state. The differences that do exist are minor and inconsequential. Not so with laws regarding carrying. In some states you can carry into a bar, others you can't. Some states allow you to carry in church, others don't. Some states have very specific regulations regarding posting of "no carry" signs. The laws are very different state to state. Then you have the whole "may issue" vs "shall issue" vs permitless CCW (Alaska, Arizona, etc).

Chris

Gowen · « **Reply #20 on:** February 25, 2011, 09:07:02 PM »

Back in 1974 when the fed enacted the 55mph speed limit the states were told they had to follow this restriction or they would lose federal funding. In the mid 80's Nevada challenged that rule and won in the US Supreme Court. The states continued to receive it's federal funding. With this as a precedent, I don't see the administration as prevailing.

stevelyn · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2011, 04:37:47 AM »

And the problem with that is?

Fed money always has fed strings attached. Right now they can probably afford to bribe most states into compliance, but what happens when the states stand on principle and refuse the bribes and refuse to comply?

gunsmith · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2011, 04:41:46 PM »

iirc thats how we got mandatory 21 yrs old to drink laws, when I was a wee lad I could buy beer at 18, now you can go kill people for Hussein Obama @ 18 but not kill and have a beer after.

GigaBuist · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2011, 09:33:58 AM »

Quote from: gunsmith on February 27, 2011, 04:41:46 PM

iirc thats how we got mandatory 21 yrs old to drink laws,

.. and seat belt laws, .08 BAC limits, collecting SSNs for a driver's license, and I'm sure there's more I've forgotten.

roo_ster · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2011, 11:24:05 AM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on February 25, 2011, 09:01:32 AM

The only way to throw off the shackles of federalisim is to repeal the 16th amendment.

This bears repeating.

Repeal of the 16th and a Nat'l sales tax collected by the states (in that order) would be a boon for freedom in many ways.

News:

Author Topic: States that balk at nation's gun laws could lose federal funds (Read 8477 times)