Posted: 11/13/2016 5:57:51 PM EDT
|
Ok maybe my GOOGLE foo completely SUCKS but ive been searching around on the site as well and cant find anything on this:
https://lonestargr.com/news/second-amendment-trial-everyone-follow/ My apologies if its been posted, mods feel free to delete if so or just post a link maybe? I would figure surely this would be sticky material since the MG lawsuits are dead as of the moment? |
|
Tacking a thread kills it.
ETA: https://lonestargr.com/news/second-amendment-trial-everyone-follow/ Link made hot. |
|
It's fucked the Feds can block the Kansas law from even being raised as defense during the trial.
If a man was on trial for murder and chose to use the defense of "he looked at me cross ways so I shot him down." there would be no stopping the defendant from choosing to do so. Even if the Feds don't feel like it is an adequate defense when considering thier preemption of state laws, how the fuck can they legal keep a defense from allowing a jury to hear it and vote accordingly? WTF |
| THE COMMERCE CLAUSE is SINGLE HANDEDLY the most over reaching BULLSHIT excuse for the Gubbermint to get their hands involved in ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING! I have said this since the dawn of MAN. By the time this case reaches the SCOTUS we will have a conservative majority thanks to Trump. I think no matter how this goes down, these defendants have a real chance of Presidential Pardon if they wind up in prison... |
|
I'm not a lawyer. How can a state legally pass restrictive gun laws with no interjection from the feds while another passes less restrictive and there are issues?
I can't see how the state can pass a law saying something is legal, then someone is charged federally in violation of what this law permits, then they can't use that as a defense? |
|
Quoted:
I'm not a lawyer. How can a state legally pass restrictive gun laws with no interjection from the feds while another passes less restrictive and there are issues? I can't see how the state can pass a law saying something is legal, then someone is charged federally in violation of what this law permits, then they can't use that as a defense? They're about taking gun rights, not giving... It's pretty simple. I still haven't figured out why people think the .gov is fair and gives two shits about the average person 
|
|
Quoted:
They're about taking gun rights, not giving... It's pretty simple. I still haven't figured out why people think the .gov is fair and gives two shits about the average person Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not a lawyer. How can a state legally pass restrictive gun laws with no interjection from the feds while another passes less restrictive and there are issues? I can't see how the state can pass a law saying something is legal, then someone is charged federally in violation of what this law permits, then they can't use that as a defense? They're about taking gun rights, not giving... It's pretty simple. I still haven't figured out why people think the .gov is fair and gives two shits about the average person I hear ya. Also interested on what kind of impact such a ruling could have on other issues such as immigration. |
|
Quoted:
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE is SINGLE HANDEDLY the most over reaching BULLSHIT excuse for the Gubbermint to get their hands involved in ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING! I have said this since the dawn of MAN. By the time this case reaches the SCOTUS we will have a conservative majority thanks to Trump. I think no matter how this goes down, these defendants have a real chance of Presidential Pardon if they wind up in prison... It is, and because of the way it's been interpreted over the years, this has pretty much no chance of success. I appreciate the guts of the guys who tried to do what it said, but this outcome was predictable. The Supreme Court won't undermine a century of federal power grabs over a gun case. |
|
Quoted:
Hmmm, that is interesting. Idaho has the same law which states that you don't need a stamp for silencers in the state if they are made here with materials from here. I don't think anyone has tested it out yet though. Utah did it too but specifically left out anything NFA. |
|
Alito argued that the NFA didn't apply to MGs that hadn't crossed state lines in a dissent when he was still a judge on a lower court. United States of America v. Raymond Rybar, Jr., 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996).
So we might only lose the case 6-2 at the Supreme Court. 
|
|
Quoted:
I'm not a lawyer. How can a state legally pass restrictive gun laws with no interjection from the feds while another passes less restrictive and there are issues? I can't see how the state can pass a law saying something is legal, then someone is charged federally in violation of what this law permits, then they can't use that as a defense? This makes me think of legal pot here in OR. Federal crime, yet legal on the states end. These motherfuckers just enforce what they want to. Apparently the feds in all their wisdom think higher Of drugs then they do guns... 
|
|
Quoted:
how much power would the federal government lose if we passed an amendment clarifying hat the "interstate commerce clause" is only for enforcing free trade between the states? Most of what the federal government does is tenuously defended. If we could make a constitutional amendment requiring a statement of how any given new (and existing) law is constitutional as well as an elimination of the administrative procedures act - and by extension the usurpation of congressional power by the executive, the federal government would be back to enforcing things internationally and interstate. Intrastate issues would likely be out of their purview. |
|
Quoted:
It is, and because of the way it's been interpreted over the years, this has pretty much no chance of success. I appreciate the guts of the guys who tried to do what it said, but this outcome was predictable. The Supreme Court won't undermine a century of federal power grabs over a gun case. This poisonous way of thinking would have led to modern day slavery. Just because law has been long standing doesnt make it moral, ethical or permanent. Its people who dare the fight who are responsible for change. We have NEVER had this level of control over all 3 branches and may NEVER have it again. Now is certainly not the time for cop out excuses. Those who never try, NEVER succeed... |
|
Its funny.....the ONLY right in the COTUS that gets the ok to ask for permission.
Some states....apply to ask for permission to own anything gun related (FOID, NC permit to purchase) a 4473, CCW/TLC/CCP. They let violent people walk among us, then want US to get a NICS check...WTF? They fucked it all up and we have to pay the price, then they put .gov heel on .civ neck. Its all kinds of fucked up. ETA: Good job KS! Its about time a state with balls told the Feds to GFYS 
|
|
Quoted:
It's fucked the Feds can block the Kansas law from even being raised as defense during the trial. If a man was on trial for murder and chose to use the defense of "he looked at me cross ways so I shot him down." there would be no stopping the defendant from choosing to do so. Even if the Feds don't feel like it is an adequate defense when considering thier preemption of state laws, how the fuck can they legal keep a defense from allowing a jury to hear it and vote accordingly? WTF Didnt read the article did you? The State of Kansas stepped in and filed a motion to intervene: "The day the trial began, the State of Kansas filed and was granted a Motion to Intervene. This means that the State of Kansas has injected themselves into the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403(b) which dictates that the State has the right to intervene whenever "the constitutionality of any statute of that State affecting the public interest is drawn in question." Because of this, it is very likely that this case could go all the way up to the Supreme Court, making it a landmark for the Second Amendment." |
|
Quoted:
how much power would the federal government lose if we passed an amendment clarifying hat the "interstate commerce clause" is only for enforcing free trade between the states? DEA, FDA, EPA and on and on are all tied to the ICC. They would lose substantial power to regulate our daily lives. |
|
Quoted:
This poisonous way of thinking would have led to modern day slavery. Just because law has been long standing doesnt make it moral, ethical or permanent. Its people who dare the fight who are responsible for change. We have NEVER had this level of control over all 3 branches and may NEVER have it again. Now is certainly not the time for cop out excuses. Those who never try, NEVER succeed... Quoted:
Quoted:
It is, and because of the way it's been interpreted over the years, this has pretty much no chance of success. I appreciate the guts of the guys who tried to do what it said, but this outcome was predictable. The Supreme Court won't undermine a century of federal power grabs over a gun case. This poisonous way of thinking would have led to modern day slavery. Just because law has been long standing doesnt make it moral, ethical or permanent. Its people who dare the fight who are responsible for change. We have NEVER had this level of control over all 3 branches and may NEVER have it again. Now is certainly not the time for cop out excuses. Those who never try, NEVER succeed... Poisonous way of thinking? Are you one of the defendants? |
|
Quoted:
I'm not a lawyer. How can a state legally pass restrictive gun laws with no interjection from the feds while another passes less restrictive and there are issues? I can't see how the state can pass a law saying something is legal, then someone is charged federally in violation of what this law permits, then they can't use that as a defense? The federal government can only act in areas where it has been delegated authority. The federal government is lying when it claims that something made, sold, and remaining entirely within a State is "interstate commerce", and thus subject to regulation. That will never be fixed unless ti is challenged, like this case. |
|
Quoted:
Poisonous way of thinking? Are you one of the defendants? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is, and because of the way it's been interpreted over the years, this has pretty much no chance of success. I appreciate the guts of the guys who tried to do what it said, but this outcome was predictable. The Supreme Court won't undermine a century of federal power grabs over a gun case. This poisonous way of thinking would have led to modern day slavery. Just because law has been long standing doesnt make it moral, ethical or permanent. Its people who dare the fight who are responsible for change. We have NEVER had this level of control over all 3 branches and may NEVER have it again. Now is certainly not the time for cop out excuses. Those who never try, NEVER succeed... Poisonous way of thinking? Are you one of the defendants? 
|
|
Quoted: Utah did it too but specifically left out anything NFA. Quoted: Quoted: Hmmm, that is interesting. Idaho has the same law which states that you don't need a stamp for silencers in the state if they are made here with materials from here. I don't think anyone has tested it out yet though. Utah did it too but specifically left out anything NFA. Utah only left out machine guns. Not SBR/SBS/AOW/suppressors. And, the way the law is written, there is a technical loophole where under Utah law, a fully automatic gun chambered to fire shotgun shells would be legal. |
|
Quoted:
Hmmm, that is interesting. Idaho has the same law which states that you don't need a stamp for silencers in the state if they are made here with materials from here. I don't think anyone has tested it out yet though. Yes, it has been tested in wickard v filburn and Gonzales v raich and in Rybar. The scotus has consistently sided with the festive in cases involving commerce, no matter how dubious the scenario. |
|
Quoted: THE COMMERCE CLAUSE is SINGLE HANDEDLY the most over reaching BULLSHIT excuse for the Gubbermint to get their hands involved in ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING! I have said this since the dawn of MAN. By the time this case reaches the SCOTUS we will have a conservative majority thanks to Trump. I think no matter how this goes down, these defendants have a real chance of Presidential Pardon if they wind up in prison... I prefer to refer to it as the "commerce between the States" clause, not the "interstate commerce" clause. The first is what is actually in the Constitution, the second is what the left has warped it into in order to justify Congress reaching into every aspect of our lives. |
|
Quoted:
Any asshole can grow Marijuana, not as easy to make automatic weapons. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quoted:
Quoted:
I have said it before, ill say it a million times, Federal Law means little with WIDE SPREAD DISOBEDIENCE. Look at Marijuana if you doubt me... Any asshole can grow Marijuana, not as easy to make automatic weapons. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Not to mention the penalties are high and no one wants to be the martyr. Good luck to the defendants. |
|
Quoted: I'm not a lawyer. How can a state legally pass restrictive gun laws with no interjection from the feds while another passes less restrictive and there are issues? I can't see how the state can pass a law saying something is legal, then someone is charged federally in violation of what this law permits, then they can't use that as a defense? It's the fucking liberal agenda again, drugs ain't bad but guns are, like pot being illegal on a federal level but states legalize it and the feds do nothing but make a suppressor that's legal in your state and the feds want to hang you.  |
|
Look, this approach (state nullification of federal firearms laws) is a legal dead end. Because of the Supremacy Clause, no federal court is going to uphold it.
At long last, we finally have Republican control of all 3 branches of the federal government. Let's make the most of that. Stop wasting time on things that are guaranteed to go nowhere. |
|
Quoted:
Utah only left out machine guns. Not SBR/SBS/AOW/suppressors. And, the way the law is written, there is a technical loophole where under Utah law, a fully automatic gun chambered to fire shotgun shells would be legal. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmmm, that is interesting. Idaho has the same law which states that you don't need a stamp for silencers in the state if they are made here with materials from here. I don't think anyone has tested it out yet though. Utah did it too but specifically left out anything NFA. Utah only left out machine guns. Not SBR/SBS/AOW/suppressors. And, the way the law is written, there is a technical loophole where under Utah law, a fully automatic gun chambered to fire shotgun shells would be legal. THESE LAWS ARE PERFECTLY ANALOGOUS TO MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION LAWS. (Meant to shout it) Look, the fact is marihuana is a banned controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA). It is not legal in any state for medical or recreational use or sale. Every single use and/or sale is a direct clear violation of federal law, prosecutable in any federal court. -and yet, the Feds allow sale/use in many states (and ironically, D.C.). There is nothing stopping a Trump administration from treating suppressors made OUTSIDE THE NFA exactly the same way in those states. Only those states would be affected. And the non-NFA suppressors would only be legal in-state (just like D.C. pot is not legal in Virginia). These cases stand a chance now. Let's try it and see. |
|
Quoted: It's the fucking liberal agenda again, drugs ain't bad but guns are, like pot being illegal on a federal level but states legalize it and the feds do nothing but make a suppressor that's legal in your state and the feds want to hang you. Quoted: Quoted: I'm not a lawyer. How can a state legally pass restrictive gun laws with no interjection from the feds while another passes less restrictive and there are issues? I can't see how the state can pass a law saying something is legal, then someone is charged federally in violation of what this law permits, then they can't use that as a defense? It's the fucking liberal agenda again, drugs ain't bad but guns are, like pot being illegal on a federal level but states legalize it and the feds do nothing but make a suppressor that's legal in your state and the feds want to hang you. So are there any states with legal pot AND legal suppressors? Because a case against the interstate commerce clause where a defendant is caught with BOTH would be very interesting. |
|
Quoted:
how much power would the federal government lose if we passed an amendment clarifying hat the "interstate commerce clause" is only for enforcing free trade between the states? The biggest problem would be cleaning up the mess when all the liberals head explode. |
|
Quoted:
But the states re-writing federal law on marijuana get a pass, huh? States are not rewriting federal law. All states are doing is saying they don't have any criminal laws against marijuana. It is up to the Feds to nut up and enforce their law. The Feds don't want to because it would cost them a shit load of money; and cost the Democrat party their voter base. |
| While we have the trifecta we should use it...File countless suits in support of the 2A in every state and see what works it's way thru and build on that. The left has used this approach quite successfully over the years, look at the state level MJ laws we have now... |