The “Trayvon amendment” will cut some federal funding to states which have the Castle Doctrine
We all knew what was going to happen once the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident became a political football–the Democrats were going to use this issue in an attempt to pass more restrictive gun control laws. They have been looking for a crisis to exploit since Operation Fast and Furious imploded and they feel as if they have found it in Florida.
Florida’s second amendment friendly stand your ground law is being made the scapegoat in the death of Trayvon Martin and now some Democrats in the House are preparing to attach the Trayvon amendment to the Commerce Department spending bill. What the Trayvon amendment does is cut some funding to states which have any type of stand your ground/Castle Doctrine law on the books in a blatant attempt to persuade states to adopt less gun friendly laws if they want federal money to keep flowing into the coffers.
Federal money shouldn’t be spent supporting states with laws that endanger their own people,” said Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the two Democrats who are offering the legislation. “This is no different than withholding transportation funds from states that don’t enforce seat-belt laws
I just happen to live in the only state (New Hampshire) without any adult seatbelt laws and I can report to you that we are managing to get along without the transportation money, thank you. We don’t need the federal government stepping on our rights here in the Live Free or Die state just so that we can get roughly $5 million in transportation money, but the transportation funding and this potential Trayvon amendment show us exactly how damaging it can be to states rights now that it has become commonplace for the states to rely on federal money in the first place.
By accepting federal money the states give up their individual sovereignty because they must meet federal requirements in order to keep receiving the money, and as can be seen in the Trayvon amendment, that means changing state laws in order to create a defacto federal law. So while the Congress isn’t going after a new federal gun control law per say, they are attempting to persuade the individual states to pass gun laws the federal government feels are more appropriate and because these laws will be changed at a state level it is believed by the Congress that those who believe in state rights won’t notice what is happening.
I don’t think the Trayvon amendment stands a chance at passing the House right now, but we will have to keep a close eye on this in the future and even if it fails we can rest assured it will come back again if Barack Obama wins reelection and the Democrats take back the House.
America's Watchtower 
Makes sense a Muslim would support this. These amendments have a habit of slipping in the bill in the dark of the night.
LikeLike
Yes they do, let’s hope they don’t think this bill is so important that they pass it with this amendment intact.
LikeLike
I saw the article about the amendment earlier today and was wondering if you’d pick it up. Good point on the dependence on federal funds. We have the right to defend ourselves, regardless of what some knee jerk liberal in DC says. I also seriously question the statistic they cite about the number of “deaths due to self-defense” having tripled since the law was enacted. I’m guessing that’s a half-truth at best.
…keep your powder dry…
LikeLike
I think that stat was made up on the spot because it runs counter to every other stat I have seen. Because the states have become dependent on the federal funds they have become slaves to the federal government and the feds can basically dictate to the states how they should operate. Think about that; the feds take our money and then tell us that if we want it back we have to do what they want us to!
LikeLike
Once again the Federal government is trying to modify the behavior of states by pulling back money. I say go for it. If by some chance they manage to push this through I hope the states push back and say keep your money, we’ll keep our right to self defend ourselves. Boy that would be a mega backfire wouldn’t it?
LikeLike
I agree John and I hope that if this passes New Hampshire says screw you. If all the states do this then it will be a wasted effort on the part of the feds. But this does highlight the problem of the states accepting federal money in the first place, if they want the money they have to play ball.
LikeLike
The Reps. Raul Grijalva of Arizona and Keith Ellison of Minnesota just happen to be co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who also introduced the Restore the American Dream for the 99 Percent Act into the House of Representatives. The Socialists are still working at controlling every aspect of our lives.
LikeLike
Yes they are, and in order to control our lives they have to limit the second amendment and that is exactly what they are trying to do.
LikeLike
So the reconquista and the CAIR loving jihadist want to take our guns away? Of course, when you look at their constituents, it kind of makes sense. But they aren’t us.
LikeLike
It is a very suspect group of reps that is trying to push this, isn’t it? I am not surprised by this move, it was expected after the Martin shooting.
LikeLike
So our freedoms hang by some unrelated event that is used for political purposes while other acts of violence are ignored?
I have to admit I didn’t see this one coming. Liberals are very good at making anything about them.
LikeLike
Once this made national headlines and politicians started weighing in on it and on FLorida’s stand your ground law it was only a matter of time before the Dems moved on gun control. This is a sneaky was to do it though.
LikeLike
Very sneaky. Of course, that’s why Dems did it!
LikeLike
It is the way they roll.
LikeLike
I don’t see how withholding funds to a state can be right. If the taxes are collected from all states regardless of their rules, then they should be distributed equally also.
LikeLike
The problem is that in order for a state to get federal funding they have to meet federal guidelines. “Free” money comes at a price and the real problem here is that the feds are taking money from the people of some states and redistributing to people of other states when in fact this money shouldn’t be going to the federal government in the first place.
LikeLike
Let me see if I have this straight. They want to withhold federal funds from states who have self-defense laws? Because they feel those laws are a danger to the inhabitants of those states? Is that correct?
At the same time, they have no problem funding Planned Parenthood so they can provide abortion on demand. There is something drastically wrong with this picture.
LikeLike
I think you have it about right Larry.
LikeLike
Withholding money from the States is an old federal tactic. I recall the 55mph thing and how well that worked–ha! Remember many cars even had the 55 marked on their speed odometers. Some of them are still around. As for the Castle Doctrine, like you say it’s DOA in the House, and perhaps even the Senate. However, like you say it was expected that the dems would use Martin-Zimmerman to attack the 2nd and gun rights. Liberals will never give up on this fight and we must always keep up our guard and hopefully get Judges on the High Court that will protect constitutional values. Was not aware of your seat beat thing in NH—good for you. We fought it here in Mississippi, but lost.
LikeLike
It sure is Ron, the enticement of “free” federal money is too much of a temptation for states to resist so they give in to federal regulations and in turn give up sovereignity.
Every few years the seat belt issue comes up here, usually when funds are low and the state is tempted with the possibility of a $5 million windfall, but so far we have been able to hold it off.
LikeLike