User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:20:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They probably did... to FFLs asking them to narc on anybody who fills out a 4473 and answers no to illegal user because they have a Medical MJ card. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They sent out "weed is still illegal" letters to other states too, right? They probably did... to FFLs asking them to narc on anybody who fills out a 4473 and answers no to illegal user because they have a Medical MJ card. <----FFL They didn't send us a letter about narcing, just a reminder that marijuana remains illegal under federal law. And an FFL has no way to know if the customer has a medical marijuana card or is an unlawful user. If the customer chooses to lie on the 4473, that felony is on him, not the dealer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:23:10 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what? If its a manufacturer within your own State, how have you engaged in interstate commerce? For that matter, how is your mere possession of an item a form of "interstate commerce?" Did the framers mean to give the Federal government broad authority to regulate the possession of items altogether? Or just the authority to regulate interstate commerce? By the logic of Wickard and Gonzalez, mining fucking bauxite in your back yard, refining it into aluminum in your garage, and machining that aluminum in your home workshop means you've committed an activity that might affect interstate commerce. And therefore those activities ARE interstate commerce. Even though NO COMMERCE has taken place at all. Let alone interstate commerce. Interstate Commerce is the federal government's cheat code to override state and local laws. They could argue that taking a shit in a rice paddy in south Texas could provoke a banner year of rice growth, affecting commerce with other states. There is no argument too ridiculous. Nor is there a shortage of federal judges willing to entertain them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:28:11 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes but you are not growing a suppressor. You are purchasing one from an existing manufacture. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Did you read Wickard? Using your own flour instead of selling it affects interstate commerce, so that pretty much opens EVERYTHING to government control.  Yes but you are not growing a suppressor. You are purchasing one from an existing manufacture. So you agree if somebody makes their own silencer, or cuts down the barrel of their own shotgun, there's no commerce and no legitimate federal power over that action? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:32:49 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you agree if somebody makes their own silencer, or cuts down the barrel of their own shotgun, there's no commerce and no legitimate federal power over that action? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did you read Wickard? Using your own flour instead of selling it affects interstate commerce, so that pretty much opens EVERYTHING to government control. Yes but you are not growing a suppressor. You are purchasing one from an existing manufacture. So you agree if somebody makes their own silencer, or cuts down the barrel of their own shotgun, there's no commerce and no legitimate federal power over that action? There's the way it is, and the way it should be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:34:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A Tax that cannot be paid is an infringement. An organization, no longer under the auspices of the IRS, cannot collect said tax. Ergo, the BATFE is illegal in and of itself under the US Constitution. Now... We just need a few judges and juries to agree.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The NFA itself is an excise tax law. Now... We just need a few judges and juries to agree. Congress can decide who enforces what tax and how the executive is to be organized. ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. Also, I was not aware that the ATF no longer allows the purchase of tax stamps for suppressors. When did this happen? Citation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:35:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Yup that's true, and the 2nd Amendment prohibits gun laws from both the federal and state governments, and they ignore that every single second of every day, so fuck em. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:38:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Congress can decide who enforces what tax and how the executive is to be organized. ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. Also, I was not aware that the ATF no longer allows the purchase of tax stamps for suppressors. When did this happen? Citation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The NFA itself is an excise tax law. Now... We just need a few judges and juries to agree. Congress can decide who enforces what tax and how the executive is to be organized. ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. Also, I was not aware that the ATF no longer allows the purchase of tax stamps for suppressors. When did this happen? Citation? "UM it's illegal to execute me in a death camp! Do you have a citation making it legal???" - this guy and everyone like him. We're so far down the rabbit hole at this point that arguing over constitutional technicalities at this point tells me you've lost the plot entirely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:42:21 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: If we had enough people to suit up in battle rattle and say "fuck it", we should have enough people to vote the shit out, and vote in people that would uphold the Constitution. Elections are just a formality for most, as they get reelected easily. Many have been in office since before many on this board were even born. Hell, grassley here has been in office since 1959... You think voting matters when they decide the final vote numbers? Quoted: Ayup. Rusty is missing the point. See above Quoted: It's just words. If those in power ignore those words, and We the People ignore them ignoring those words, what is the outcome? Then make the case for not flipping over our table C and getting our cake back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:44:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. You are doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:48:12 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You think voting matters when they decide the final vote numbers? See above Then make the case for not flipping over our table C and getting our cake back then. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If we had enough people to suit up in battle rattle and say "fuck it", we should have enough people to vote the shit out, and vote in people that would uphold the Constitution. Elections are just a formality for most, as they get reelected easily. Many have been in office since before many on this board were even born. Hell, grassley here has been in office since 1959... You think voting matters when they decide the final vote numbers? Quoted: Ayup. Rusty is missing the point. See above Quoted: It's just words. If those in power ignore those words, and We the People ignore them ignoring those words, what is the outcome? Then make the case for not flipping over our table C and getting our cake back then. The real fraud bestowed on the American people are the actual candidates that have been on the ballots for over a century. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:49:36 PM EDT
[#11]
The law is meaningless. It all comes down to political will. And we have zero.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:54:26 PM EDT
[#12]
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. 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. The interstate commerce clause has become so twisted that they’ll say they have a case, even if every single part were sourced from within state, as doing so “would impact interstate commerce because they COULD have used parts from out of state.” Basically saying the state law is superceeded bc without the state law consumer would have likely conducted commerce with an out of state vendor and thus there is an impact. Edit: beat 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:" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:55:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) 4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:57:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.It does, but Constitutionally it’s not supposed to. And not just because of the 2A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:57:56 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We will continue to selectively enforce whatever rules and laws we choose against whomever we choose, so help us god Hunter been charged yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 5:59:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.What if federal law is unconstitutional? No true constitutionalist believes nfa is legit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:00:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My problem with this all is some peaceful 2a law abiding citizen is going to get caught up in this pissing match and get slapped with felony . He'll lose his rights and spend time in prison over the Feds wanting to flex. Unless Texas is willing to kick the ATF and FBI out of the state, you're rolling the dice and they're stacked against you. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:01:08 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yo..tards... It is a constitutional issue. Period. States do not get to decide to support it or not. Yo tard. Where do you think federal power/authority is derived from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:01:43 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if federal law is unconstitutional? No true constitutionalist believes nfa is legit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.What if federal law is unconstitutional? No true constitutionalist believes nfa is legit. Nope, but plenty of people have found out that the punishment feels legit... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:03:16 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The real fraud bestowed on the American people are the actual candidates that have been on the ballots for over a century. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If we had enough people to suit up in battle rattle and say "fuck it", we should have enough people to vote the shit out, and vote in people that would uphold the Constitution. Elections are just a formality for most, as they get reelected easily. Many have been in office since before many on this board were even born. Hell, grassley here has been in office since 1959... You think voting matters when they decide the final vote numbers? Quoted: Ayup. Rusty is missing the point. See above Quoted: It's just words. If those in power ignore those words, and We the People ignore them ignoring those words, what is the outcome? Then make the case for not flipping over our table C and getting our cake back then. The real fraud bestowed on the American people are the actual candidates that have been on the ballots for over a century. If only we had the ability to make choices.  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:08:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Huh, all this time I thought Wickard was argued by real lawyers with real education and law degrees before the US Supreme Court. You should write a letter to ATF telling them they be wrong. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/476-342.gif Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Huh, all this time I thought Wickard was argued by real lawyers with real education and law degrees before the US Supreme Court. You should write a letter to ATF telling them they be wrong. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/476-342.gif And? Doesn't mean they are right. Plenty of people with law degrees on the opposite side of the matter, and the text, history, and common understanding of the actual Constitution are not in line with Wickard. Also, someone argued opposite the outcome and had a law degree or license. That the court ruled one way or another does not mean it ruled the right way, and courts have even reversed themselves; obviously the court could not have been right in both instances, but was at most right in only one of them. It needs to be remembered that the court was simply ruling in the way that best served what the government wanted to do, as the previous court had been doing the opposite and thwarting the New Deal by ruling its components unconstitutional (which they were). Once the justices in the way got out of the way, the court completely flipped. These rulings are mainly ideological/political, not constitutional. The constitution was irrelevant; rulings were just a means to an end, with a veneer of law. This is how the courts have largely functioned for most of the period between the "change in time that saved nine" and the changes in composition which occurred under the Trump Administration. At this point, though, so much of our statutes, case law, and government are founded in these rulings that even some of the most conservative judges are not willing to just capsize the boat. If you wish to positively assert that Wickard was based on something actually in the text, history, and common contemporary understanding (or even intent, if we want to expand the scope a bit) of the Constitution, please give a brief argument showing as much. Honestly, it's a pretty bold assertion to claim that the Founders, who went to war over a government exceeding its constitutional authority and exercising too much power, would found a new government to which they granted nearly unlimited power, more power than any government of the time or before had ever held, especially given the lack of any evidence of the same and statements from them to the contrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:11:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whatever you do, don't read Wickard.  Your interpretation of the Constitution and mine don't matter in the least. The USSC's does. And the USSC says intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce, therfore the Commerce Clause applies. That opinion is unlikely to change anytime soon. 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:" 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. Whatever you do, don't read Wickard. Your interpretation of the Constitution and mine don't matter in the least. The USSC's does. And the USSC says intrastate commerce affects interstate commerce, therfore the Commerce Clause applies. That opinion is unlikely to change anytime soon. Which part of the constitution grants judicial supremacy? What in the history of the constitution indicates such an intent or understanding? The reality is that the Founders made the judiciary the weakest branch because of the abuses of the judiciary under British rule, which was also much more powerful than what the Constitution created. The judiciary assumed much power for itself. Heck, one of the abuses the Founders wanted to check were star chambers, and lo and behold, we once again have those in our country at the Federal level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:13:20 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "UM it's illegal to execute me in a death camp! Do you have a citation making it legal???" - this guy and everyone like him. We're so far down the rabbit hole at this point that arguing over constitutional technicalities at this point tells me you've lost the plot entirely. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The NFA itself is an excise tax law. Now... We just need a few judges and juries to agree. Congress can decide who enforces what tax and how the executive is to be organized. ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. Also, I was not aware that the ATF no longer allows the purchase of tax stamps for suppressors. When did this happen? Citation? "UM it's illegal to execute me in a death camp! Do you have a citation making it legal???" - this guy and everyone like him. We're so far down the rabbit hole at this point that arguing over constitutional technicalities at this point tells me you've lost the plot entirely. Okay, LOL. My point is that this law was short-sighted, silly, and a waste of time; it's really more political pandering than anything else. Your statement would only reinforce such a point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:14:13 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FIFY Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Overturn Hypocrite much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:16:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yo..tards... It is a constitutional issue. Period. States do not get to decide to support it or not. I suppose they could make the argument a suppressor is not a firearm, so 2A does not apply. Not that they have ever cared about 2A. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:18:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Congress has decided to do a lot of things without a strict Constitutional power to do so. How many times do things like poll taxes need to be struck down before the rest of you figure it out? You can call it an "excise" all you want, but if you have to pay it to exercise a Right... You are doing it wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. You are doing it wrong. Poll taxes are specifically prohibited. Before that amendment, States were free to use them. Voting is not an actual right, but a privilege, one which was subject to all manner of qualifications back when the country was freer in most respects (there's a connection there). Also, I brought up the idea that taxing a right might very well violate it. But that is a different matter from whether Congress has a power to levy excise taxes on things regardless of whether interstate commerce is involved or not (it does) and whether or not Congress has the power to determine how those laws, presuming they are themselves constitutional, are to be enforced (it does, with some limitations, i.e. the laws for enforcement must be necessary and proper and not violate any other constitutional provisions). Honestly, the process involved to pay the tax, acquire the item, and maintain ownership of the taxed item are more burdensome in most cases than the tax itself at this point. Back when the tax first came into being, though, it was prohibitively expensive, and this was done deliberately. The whole point was to undermine the right via prohibitive taxation when it came to items Congress didn't like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:18:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Well.... states make their own laws concerning illegal immigrants and pot.
Maybe it's time for a break. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:20:24 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) 4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) 4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113. It would follow, then, that the Feds cannot, either, since the Bill of Rights was originally passed to restrict the Federal government. If all incorporation does is pass on the same to the States, then it would be logical to state that whatever the States can't do in relation to these rights, the Feds also cannot do. I'm not sure this question has ever been brought up to higher court levels, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:29:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And? And it means your argument isn't with me, because I'm not yet on the Supreme Court. I was supposed to be nominated right after the Hearing Protection Act passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:39:50 PM EDT
[#30]
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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 6:51:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes but you are not growing a suppressor. You are purchasing one from an existing manufacture.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 7:07:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Congress can decide who enforces what tax and how the executive is to be organized. ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. Also, I was not aware that the ATF no longer allows the purchase of tax stamps for suppressors. When did this happen? Citation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The NFA itself is an excise tax law. Now... We just need a few judges and juries to agree. Congress can decide who enforces what tax and how the executive is to be organized. ATF still exercise tax enforcement functions, and Congress has decided as much. That part is constitutional. Also, I was not aware that the ATF no longer allows the purchase of tax stamps for suppressors. When did this happen? Citation? You bring up a good point, notice how the TX law didn't include happy switches. ATF will issue stamps for suppressors, trying getting a post 86 stamped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 7:19:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? It's that part that says not producing something on a farm affect interstate commerce, therefore it can be regulated by the Feds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 7:20:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I believe this was always anticipated when the law was conceived and now passed. The idea was to get the ATF to say the law goes against Fed law so TX could challenge it through the courts and preferable wind up at the USSC. I'm not sure if someone has to be a sacrificial lamb for this to happen. Besides, this is TX. I'm sure someone out there right now is saying, "Oh yeah! Well fuck them! I'm making a TX silencer and let them come for me!" This is how a gun lawyer explained it to me. The law doesn't go hot until 9/1/21. We'll see how it works out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 7:30:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes but you are not growing a suppressor. You are purchasing one from an existing manufacture.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 7:47:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Fuck the feds |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 7:50:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.Unless you are a Blue State and have a republican president. Then it's States rights something, something, something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 7:58:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They sent out "weed is still illegal" letters to other states too, right? First post and all. Just don't get caught by a fed with it and you'll be fine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 8:00:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And who is the one likely to find you with it or talk to you ? Game warden.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 8:08:24 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is no legal challenge. Federal law supersedes State law.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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 8:39:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You bring up a good point, notice how the TX law didn't include happy switches. ATF will issue stamps for suppressors, trying getting a post 86 stamped. If they had a set of balls between them, they would have amended 46.05(a) to strike (1)(B), (1)(C), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) rather than just (6) but that would have been meaningful civil rights legislation, helping bring chapter 46 in line with the Texas Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 8:53:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Federal law has to derive from somewhere. What part of the Constitution gives the government the power to regulate intrastate commerce? Quote HistoryQuoted: 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? What constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:07:52 PM EDT
[#43]
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? Weed is far more popular than suppressors, unfortunately |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:09:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) 4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. P. 319 U. S. 113. The constitution does not grant rights. It recognizes them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:17:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Weed sales generate a LOT of revenue which the .gov is getting a portion of so it turns a blind eye. Suppressors, not so much |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:35:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. If the Republicans were really Republicans... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:40:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. 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:" 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. Feds have claimed that if raw materials for the guns (or whatever) came from out of state then interstate commerce has occured. Next they will state that if a guy in Caddo Lake, Texas orders a Texas-made silencer in Dallas and his cell phone call used a cell tower in Louisiana to complete the call then interstate commerce will apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:44:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The law is meaningless. It all comes down to political will. And we have zero. War, revolution, whatever you want to call it. It's still only politics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:46:10 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope that is left to the individual when they come. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Wait I can make a silencer in Texas , and the Texas law enforcement won't give a shit cause it's state legal ? As of 9/1/2021, yes. But Texas will not defend you from federal prosecution. Nope that is left to the individual when they come. Coincidentally, having a suppressor and NODS might help you defend yourself from said persecution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2021 9:47:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the Republicans were really Republicans... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. If the Republicans were really Republicans... Even with those numbers, I doubt we would get anything pro 2nd to pass. Might even end up with further erosions... |
|
|
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.
