Pro-gun groups are forming an effort to block this new danger to the 2nd Amendment. We need action to stop further Federal infringement on our gun rights. News at the "BATF soldier" icon at:
National CCW Reciprocity Foundation
http://www.NationalCCW.com

Plus 2 new web polls.

Educate me.  I've been involved in Exile litigation since it started.  I took a case to the US Sup Ct. this past year (it's a 3 year old case) and in all my dealings with this law and the AUSAs and agents involved, I have yet to see anything but prosecutions against criminals- real criminals- some hard core.  

I've heard the slippery slope argument over and over and I just don't buy it.  The agents that I know and, especially, the AUSAs don't have time to f*ck with anything less than those who really deserve it.

BTW: US Sup Ct denied cert if you are wondering.  Really sucked- I had a winning 4th amendment issue that I won in lower court and got reversed on appeal- what do you expect from the same Circuit who tried to tell us Miranda does not matter.  

This seems to be "reaching" just a little.

[url]http://www.NationalCCW.com[/url]

The Constitution does not allow for a Federal police force, therefore BATF enforcement of such laws is unconstitutional. The Second Amendment should prohibit such Federal gun laws, so such laws are also unconstitutional.

http://www.NationalCCW.com

The Constitution neither specificly authorizes nor prohibits federal law enforcement, but there is that sticky interstate commerce clause.  Your arguments don't hold water.

The old "dog didn't bark" arguemnt.  The Constitution doesn't say a LOT of things- does not mean anything not mentioned is per se unconstitutional.  Federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce and, as Dave G mentions, this is the nexus between federal enforcement of gun laws and the constitution.  Your argument is weak but based on your beliefs, so I respect them.  However, practically, real-world speaking, the project is a GOOD THING for all legal gun owners.

Now I know how the world sees me.....

EVERY TIME I hear a voice more conservative than mine....


I label them LOONEY TOONS !!!!!!

I once had a business law prof. who would argue that you could pass almost any law and use the interstate commerce rational.  I asked him if that means that you could "legislate" communism, and he refused to answer my question and said that he wasn't going to fall into my trap.  He was pretty pinko, but he actually agreed with me when I was the only one to say that the 2nd amendment pertained to individual rights and anti-oppressive government rational.  He even brought up pre-WWII Germany.

I do think that we have to be careful with saying that gun laws don't work.  It could play into a long term strategy of the anti's that since we can't control gun violence or guns, we have to get rid of guns, since pro-gun people even say that the laws don't work.

My Conlaw professor said something similar to this my second year of law school.  He was a little out there.

BTW, kewl handle.

Troy, you are right and I agree with this- especially the second statment.  However, well-reasoned gun laws (like felony possession or use in the commission of a felony) do accomplish a goal I think is healthy, to-wit: putting criminals in jail for long terms.



I agree- it's also important to note, however, that most AUSAs and a LOT (not all) of the agents and detectives enforcing these laws have no other agenda than to put criminals away.  This I know for a fact.