User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:36:42 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, when "We the People" sit back and let them fuck us over non stop, and then continue to reelect them, why would they give a fuck?  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:  There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. Well, when "We the People" sit back and let them fuck us over non stop, and then continue to reelect them, why would they give a fuck? but do we re-elect them? I'm still waiting to see some audits |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:37:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except the federal government has no authority over guns, see 2nd Amendment. The federal government also has no authority over intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce. If that doesn't satisfy you, please point it out in the appropriate Constitution Article where Congress has the authority to restrict guns specifically, if it's not there the 10th Amendment applies. I'm out of my depth on this one, but I believe what hinges all of this isn't necessarily the text of the Constitution, but rather the decisions made by the Supreme Court on the commerce clause, particularly one ruling which mentioned Congress's power "extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce." The crucial word being "affect", and I think this is what everything comes down to. But I'm an idiot, and much smarter people than I can probably elaborate on that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:38:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Dear norks, what good are you? You talk and talk....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:38:35 PM EDT
[#4]
Its a start and an open acknowledgement that some fed laws are unconstitutional......and the states will fight it until the law is removed from the fed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:38:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They just won’t be sold at FFLs, more like feed and hardware stores. Hopefully it become so big that they won’t be able to stop it, like prohibition and weed. Screen name fits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:39:20 PM EDT
[#6]
So the Feds are cool with weed and yet they're going to come down hard with the full force and might of the Federal government over someone selling a device designed to prevent or at least reduce hearing loss that is protected under the Constitution from which they derive all their authority from as a government?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:39:48 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:39:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: TX LEO won't, but that won't save you from a dime in a FPMITAP Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Wait I can make a silencer in Texas , and the Texas law enforcement won't give a shit cause it's state legal ? TX LEO won't, but that won't save you from a dime in a FPMITAP And who is the one likely to find you with it or talk to you ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:40:25 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. Then neither do I. See how that works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:40:41 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: but do we re-elect them? I'm still waiting to see some audits Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. Well, when "We the People" sit back and let them fuck us over non stop, and then continue to reelect them, why would they give a fuck? but do we re-elect them? I'm still waiting to see some audits Obviously it must be cheating. It's the only logical explanation why many of them are in office for decades...  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:40:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, when "We the People" sit back and let them fuck us over non stop, and then continue to reelect them, why would they give a fuck? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. Well, when "We the People" sit back and let them fuck us over non stop, and then continue to reelect them, why would they give a fuck?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:41:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Actually there is. It's a good bet the feds aren't going after weed because they don't want an enterprising state's AG to challenge the Fed government's ability to regulate weed and other things under the ICC. If the Feds were to lose that weed case a lot of things come under review the EPA DEA etc. A gun case would be easy for a judge to knock back and say "guns bad blah blah" but weed every body is doing it and presidents have admitted to using it. I'd like to see the weed case but mysteriously none have occurred. Why is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:41:50 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wasn’t there some bs that went on with trumps doj on this? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They said the same thing to Kansas in 2012 after we passed our 2nd amendment protection act. Our law even stipulated that that the state DOJ is obligated to assist any Kansan who gets the fed's attention. One man sits in jail because he made Kansas legal suppressors, and Kansas DOJ basically wrote a sternly worded letter in his defense. Wasn’t there some bs that went on with trumps doj on this? Yes, the man sought a pardon from Trump, and our DOJ sent the Trump administration a request for pardon, but Trump did not grant one. But they didn't seek the pardon until the last few months of his term IIRC. @Honda4828 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:42:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The crucial word being "affect", and I think this is what everything comes down to. But I'm an idiot, and much smarter people than I can probably elaborate on that. Just like we were warned it would be. The NFA, and the follow on GCA and FOPA, were predicated upon the idea that these were TAXES with the AFT being under IRS jurisdiction. Since they moved under the DoJ, they are no longer a Tax agency and are a law enforcement agency and have lost what little Constitutional legitimacy they might have been able to claim. Fuck be upon them and anyone excusing their extra-Constitutional illegal actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:42:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. I've been screaming that for decades. We the People have failed miserably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:43:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. Then they're not a legitimate government and I don't give a fuck what laws they pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:43:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the Feds are cool with weed and yet they're going to come down hard with the full force and might of the Federal government over someone selling a device designed to prevent or at least reduce hearing loss that is protected under the Constitution from which they derive all their authority from as a government? pot heads vote dem, gun owners vote rep. (generally speaking) Now you know why weed isn't on the fed's priority list. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:44:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, the man sought a pardon from Trump, and our DOJ sent the Trump administration a request for pardon, but Trump did not grant one. But they didn't seek the pardon until the last few months of his term IIRC. @Honda4828 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: They said the same thing to Kansas in 2012 after we passed our 2nd amendment protection act. Our law even stipulated that that the state DOJ is obligated to assist any Kansan who gets the fed's attention. One man sits in jail because he made Kansas legal suppressors, and Kansas DOJ basically wrote a sternly worded letter in his defense. Wasn’t there some bs that went on with trumps doj on this? Yes, the man sought a pardon from Trump, and our DOJ sent the Trump administration a request for pardon, but Trump did not grant one. But they didn't seek the pardon until the last few months of his term IIRC. @Honda4828 He was too concerned with pardoning some other pieces of shit at the time. Maybe they should have contacted the 2nd Amendment Coalition for some help? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:44:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And who is the one likely to find you with it or talk to you ? You going to move to TX and roll the dice on that one in real life? Talk is cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:45:07 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Negitive ! Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Multiple federal laws violate the 10th and need to be overturned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:45:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been screaming that for decades. We the People have failed miserably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:45:36 PM EDT
[#22]
The .gov doesn’t care about weed because there are no constitutional rights to limit and infringe upon. The ATF has to prove they are relevant, and making up new guidance and limitations is how they do it. The CDC came out and said you don’t need mask, but that didn’t infringe on anyone’s freedom, so they backtracked. As long as this administration is in power, you will not see any additional freedom at the federal level and will be challenged at state level.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:46:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been screaming that for decades. We the People have failed miserably. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. I've been screaming that for decades. We the People have failed miserably. Given the rampant voter fraud, and the deep state's commitment to its decades old power, its conceivable that the American public isn't getting what they vote for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:46:32 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, the man sought a pardon from Trump, and our DOJ sent the Trump administration a request for pardon, but Trump did not grant one. But they didn't seek the pardon until the last few months of his term IIRC. @Honda4828 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: They said the same thing to Kansas in 2012 after we passed our 2nd amendment protection act. Our law even stipulated that that the state DOJ is obligated to assist any Kansan who gets the fed's attention. One man sits in jail because he made Kansas legal suppressors, and Kansas DOJ basically wrote a sternly worded letter in his defense. Wasn’t there some bs that went on with trumps doj on this? Yes, the man sought a pardon from Trump, and our DOJ sent the Trump administration a request for pardon, but Trump did not grant one. But they didn't seek the pardon until the last few months of his term IIRC. @Honda4828 Gotcha. Also didn’t the DOJ petition the court to uphold the ruling against these unfortunate fellows? @Kevv |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:47:31 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:47:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He was too concerned with pardoning some other pieces of shit at the time. Maybe they should have contacted the 2nd Amendment Coalition for some help? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They said the same thing to Kansas in 2012 after we passed our 2nd amendment protection act. Our law even stipulated that that the state DOJ is obligated to assist any Kansan who gets the fed's attention. One man sits in jail because he made Kansas legal suppressors, and Kansas DOJ basically wrote a sternly worded letter in his defense. Wasn’t there some bs that went on with trumps doj on this? Yes, the man sought a pardon from Trump, and our DOJ sent the Trump administration a request for pardon, but Trump did not grant one. But they didn't seek the pardon until the last few months of his term IIRC. @Honda4828 He was too concerned with pardoning some other pieces of shit at the time. Maybe they should have contacted the 2nd Amendment Coalition for some help?  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:48:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:49:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except the federal government has no authority over guns, see 2nd Amendment. The federal government also has no authority over intrastate commerce, only interstate commerce. If that doesn't satisfy you, please point it out in the appropriate Constitution Article where Congress has the authority to restrict guns specifically, if it's not there the 10th Amendment applies. While I agree with you and that is the way it SHOULD be, it's not the way the world is. The federal government, just doesn't care what the constitution says or means. We have reached the babnana republic phase of gubmint where the law is what they say it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:51:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. Wickard was part of the new deal USSC's flip flop. When Lopez was written that invalidated the GF school zones, some Feds and liberal where shitting razor blades because they were concerned the USSC might go further. Rumor was Rehnquist wanted too but had to back off to get the decision he wanted. The lawyer that argued the title 9 case against LSU in 1996 is as liberal as you can get and was quite open about the fact that the Feds gambled when they took lopez to the USSC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:51:58 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.So pot is still illegal then? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:52:05 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Given the rampant voter fraud, and the deep state's commitment to its decades old power, its conceivable that the American public isn't getting what they vote for. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. I've been screaming that for decades. We the People have failed miserably. Given the rampant voter fraud, and the deep state's commitment to its decades old power, its conceivable that the American public isn't getting what they vote for. We've been giving them more and more power with every election- no matter who wins. And the funny thing is, like bush and his "Patriot" Act (that helped gov. power expand even more), anyone on the right that complains about it, gets dogpiled by the rest of them on the right. I'd say we are getting what we have voted for over the years good and hard. I guess blaming it all on "voter fraud" helps many sleep at night though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:54:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryNice. Posting that when Trump was banning Bumpstocks would have gotten you dogpiled. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:55:14 PM EDT
[#33]
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/open-letter/texas-open-letter-hb-957/download
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:56:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So pot is still illegal then? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.So pot is still illegal then? At the federal level. Until they repeal the Amendment banning it, anyway... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:56:20 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: pot heads vote dem, gun owners vote rep. (generally speaking) Now you know why weed isn't on the fed's priority list. Lol, no. States made weed legal because of the vast disregard of the laws by weed smokers, so they couldn't really do a damn thing about the "problem" except keep throwing gobs of money at it with no results. If gun rights activists did the same thing, we'd get the same results. Of course, we'd have to tolerate them locking us up and ruining our employment chances for several decades first. Nobody in the 2A community going to deal with that pain. We're all too worried about our H&K's meeting silly assed 922r guidelines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:56:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We've been giving them more and more power with every election- no matter who wins. And the funny thing is, like bush and his "Patriot" Act (that helped gov. power expand even more), anyone on the right that complains about it, gets dogpiled by the rest of them on the right. I'd say we are getting what we have voted for over the years good and hard. I guess blaming it all on "voter fraud" helps many sleep at night though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. I've been screaming that for decades. We the People have failed miserably. Given the rampant voter fraud, and the deep state's commitment to its decades old power, its conceivable that the American public isn't getting what they vote for. We've been giving them more and more power with every election- no matter who wins. And the funny thing is, like bush and his "Patriot" Act (that helped gov. power expand even more), anyone on the right that complains about it, gets dogpiled by the rest of them on the right. I'd say we are getting what we have voted for over the years good and hard. I guess blaming it all on "voter fraud" helps many sleep at night though. Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:58:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Hopefully, this isn't a dupe. Letter pretty much says that even though TX passed a law creating a TX-only silencer category exempt from Federal law, the ATF says the GCA still overrules that. I figured this was coming and a setup for a legal challenge. The one thing that seems dumb to me about the TX law is that something being made exclusively in a single State does not exempt it from being able to have Federal excises imposed upon it. The NFA itself is an excise tax law. The clause in the Constitution authorizing excise taxes is separate and not at all reliant upon the interstate commerce clause. While the GCA bases a lot on the latter, the basic rule requiring the $200 tax, and the laws Congress has deemed "necessary and proper" to enforce it, is not; it is based on the former, and therefore, when it comes to that, it is entirely irrelevant where a suppressor was made, and TX can't pass any laws to the contrary that would not be able to be deemed void and null which go against that. A better argument, I'd think, from a strictly constitutional perspective, is that taxing a right, or placing the additional burdens that come with the tax (or having a burdensome tax, which the NFA taxes definitely were, originally, and intentionally), violates the 2nd Amendment. However, I doubt in practice that many jurists would be receptive to the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects arms covered by the NFA. On the other hand, the idea that an item subject to excise taxes is no longer subject to them if not produced or involved with interstate commerce sounds like the sort of assertion that might end up getting laughed out of court. Of course, regardless of all of this, we all knew the ATF would take this position and say so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 3:59:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We've been giving them more and more power with every election- no matter who wins. And the funny thing is, like bush and his "Patriot" Act (that helped gov. power expand even more), anyone on the right that complains about it, gets dogpiled by the rest of them on the right. I'd say we are getting what we have voted for over the years good and hard. I guess blaming it all on "voter fraud" helps many sleep at night though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" InTRAstate, not inTERstate And I know wickard v can basically be used to justify anything - but it's an obviously bad decision (I know, get it overturned, etc). I'm just saying that if the government had been kept in check of the Constitution, and we had an actual neutral judiciary, we wouldn't be dealing with 90% of the garbage we're dealing with. I've been screaming that for decades. We the People have failed miserably. Given the rampant voter fraud, and the deep state's commitment to its decades old power, its conceivable that the American public isn't getting what they vote for. We've been giving them more and more power with every election- no matter who wins. And the funny thing is, like bush and his "Patriot" Act (that helped gov. power expand even more), anyone on the right that complains about it, gets dogpiled by the rest of them on the right. I'd say we are getting what we have voted for over the years good and hard. I guess blaming it all on "voter fraud" helps many sleep at night though. Fair point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:04:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While I agree with you and that is the way it SHOULD be, it's not the way the world is. The federal government, just doesn't care what the constitution says or means. We have reached the babnana republic phase of gubmint where the law is what they say it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:04:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" The commerce clause does no such thing, and Wickard is a perfect case of the courts acting in an unconstitutional manner, and yes, courts including SCOTUS can rule unconstitutionally; their word does not supersede the Constitution, and judicial supremacy can be found nowhere in the document. The way the court ruled in those cases basically say that the Constitution through a clause or two grants the Federal government nearly unlimited power, which is easy to see is false by a look at the text, history, common contemporary understanding, etc. The very idea that the clause allows for that much power was refuted in the Federalist Papers. However, the NFA itself is based on the excise tax power and not the commerce clause (since it predates the absurd New Deal era commerce clause jurisprudence). The only question is whether a right protected by the Constitution can be Federally taxed or burdened by the laws for enforcing said tax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:05:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: However, I doubt in practice that many jurists would be receptive to the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects arms covered by the NFA. Of course, regardless of all of this, we all knew the ATF would take this position and say so. The ATF itself defined them as firearms...if it goes to trial, they may very well have f'd themselves in the ass, since the Constitution uses the word "arms." Hey, if ATF says it's a firearm, then we have to trust their definition as the experts, so therefore it is 100% protected by 2A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:07:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The NFA itself is an excise tax law. Now... We just need a few judges and juries to agree.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:09:03 PM EDT
[#43]
I've been saying all along that when politicians pass pro-gun-freedom legislation that legalizes acts at the state level which are still crimes at the federal level, they should be required to perform those acts on live TV.
So I want to see the TX legislator who authored this bill drill the holes to complete a solvent trap kit and then put it on a gun and shoot it on live TV. If they are so sure passing it will protect their citizens, surely they won't be afraid to do it themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:12:19 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been saying all along that when politicians pass pro-gun-freedom legislation that legalizes acts at the state level which are still crimes at the federal level, they should be required to perform those acts on live TV. So I want to see the TX legislator who authored this bill drill the holes to complete a solvent trap kit and then put it on a gun and shoot it on live TV. If they are so sure passing it will protect their citizens, surely they won't be afraid to do it themselves. Hear hear |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:18:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" The Wickard v Filburn decision is so completely obviously pants on head retarded that it ought to be treated as irrelevant. There is no requirement that the nation disconnect itself from reality and reason because the judiciary tells them to. If SCOTUS ruled that the freedom of the press in the first amendment only applies to government funded press, or that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is only constitutionally guaranteed to the collective people serving in the armed forces while on active duty, or that since the constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit collecting Jews and putting them in gas chambers an executive order directing such is legal, you'd have the sense to say "no, that isn't in line with reality". Right? Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:21:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: They just won’t be sold at FFLs, more like feed and hardware stores. Hopefully it become so big that they won’t be able to stop it, like prohibition and weed. Like Sneeds? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:23:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? The same part where the .gov gives two fucks what you think about them deriving power from the Constitution. They don't give a fuck. And at some point the governed withdraw their consent. That's why they want to have our guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:23:30 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Obviously it must be cheating. It's the only logical explanation why many of them are in office for decades... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/50674/Reelection_rates_jpg-2031079.JPG With single digit approval rating for Congress? Sure it’s cheating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:24:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like Sneeds? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They just won’t be sold at FFLs, more like feed and hardware stores. Hopefully it become so big that they won’t be able to stop it, like prohibition and weed. Like Sneeds? We get a Republican President, 95+ Republican Senators, and 430+ Republican congressman, and I think there would maybe be a chance of that happening maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 4:30:49 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh, The Commerce Clause? Followed by several court cases, among them Wickard v Filburn The Supreme Court believed the activity at issue in Wickard "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce:" And the commerce clause does not apply to sales of an item that is manufactured , sold, and possessed inside a single state. There has to be interstate commerce for it to a ply. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
