Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/11/2006 8:13:51 AM EDT
i wonder why all the manufacturers that are on the list...colt,bushmaster,etc..have not filed some sort of lawsuit about their stripped recievers not being allowed while others are. it seems to me they are not being treated fairly
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 8:30:44 AM EDT
All they would need to do is change the make and model of the receiver. Something like Chevy and Pontiac are both made by GM. I would bet that Bushmaster is owned by another company. That company could easily start a new BRAND name with different models.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 11:28:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By photog:
All they would need to do is change the make and model of the receiver. Something like Chevy and Pontiac are both made by GM. I would bet that Bushmaster is owned by another company. That company could easily start a new BRAND name with different models.



Or keep changing their name on the lowers...

the more I think about it the more upset I get. NOT FAIR that my friends in AZ and NV can get ANYTHING they want yet we cannot. Morons in the legislature know NOTHING about firearms and passing laws. Has crime decreased since the laws were passed?

NO!

Have they INCREASED? YOU BET YOUR ASS!!!

But they will just spin it to say "Yeah but it could have been A LOT worse if we hadn't imposed these laws.

Just pisses me off more and more every day.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 12:09:12 PM EDT
Actually, violent crime in America has been decreasing for years. I'm sure California has benefitted from that trend.
Link Posted: 3/11/2006 5:40:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By urbanred:
Actually, violent crime in America has been decreasing for years. I'm sure California has benefitted from that trend.



Yeah, and I am sure it would decrease more if we were properly armed.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 5:33:25 PM EDT
If you guys want an AR just get one of those Cali legal AR. You can get a stripped down Vulcan-15 lower or one of those new Bushmaster Carbon-15. I just returned from the range shooting my Vulcan-15 lower with Model 1's 6.8 SPC upper and it was bad ass.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 5:49:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 5:51:00 PM EDT by Blue84S10]

Originally Posted By CTT2:
If you guys want an AR just get one of those Cali legal AR. You can get a stripped down Vulcan-15 lower or one of those new Bushmaster Carbon-15. I just returned from the range shooting my Vulcan-15 lower with Model 1's 6.8 SPC upper and it was bad ass.



I bet it was totally radical every time you had to pop that rear take down pin to reload it too. I've got both Fab10 and Vulcan, and I don't even shoot them anymore. I'd rather use my M1a and load a magazine into it and shoot. I don't like having to stand up from the bench every time I need to reload.
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 8:04:56 AM EDT
Pulling out my soap box (Long read follows),

The following are my thoughts on lawsuits, firearms, and interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution. I am using the Gonzales v Raich No 03-1454 which was decided June 2005. This case speaks specifically to Interstate Commerce and the Federal Power to regulate such, and how the States CAN NOT supercede the Federal Authority.

Make it a great day

Page 11

By classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to listing it on a lesser schedule, the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana became a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration pre-approved research study.

Marijuana is not illegal at the Federal Level. It has to be pre-approved FDA research. A Doctor, Drug Company, etc goes to the FDA and says hey we want to test this to see if there is any medical purpose; are we approved? Just like firearms owners having to jump through the hoops to get CLEO signoffs, CCW, etc.

Page 13

First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Perez v. United States, 402 U. S. 146, 150 (1971).

Has Congress or the Courts said the states can make firearms laws more strict than Federal Law?

Page 13

Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce.

Again Congress has the authority not the States. Congress has spoken.

Page 13

Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Again Congress has the authority not the States. Congress has spoken. How does shutting down California citizens and firearms customers from the purchase of firearms not effect commerce. The business outside of California are effected. Not just the firearms industry either, steal, plastics, shipping, fuel, wood, etc are effected.

This is referred to as a 3 prong Test. The States fail all 3 prongs of the test. Most times if two of the prongs are met then the Party meeting those prongs will have the law in their favor.

Page 22-23

Unlike those at issue in Lopez and Morrison, the activities regulated by the CSA are quintessentially economic. “Economics” refers to “the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966).
Another Three Prong Test. Are firearms part of the economy:
Are firearms produced? Yes
Are firearms distributed? Yes
Are firearms consumed as commodities? Yes

Page 23

The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product.36 Such prohibitions includespecific decisions requiring that a drug be withdrawn from the market as a result of the failure to comply with regulatory requirements as well as decisions excluding Schedule I drugs entirely from the market. Because the CSA is a statute that directly regulates economic, commercial activity, our opinion in Morrison casts no doubt on its constitutionality.
The Gun Control Act of insert year here is a Federal statute just like the CSA. The States have overstepped their bounds in a big way.

Page 24 – 25

Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” 21 U. S. C. §801(1). Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug,37 the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law.
The Federal Government controls firearms not the States. The State can not make anything the Federal Government has under interstate commerce more or less regulated than the Feds. To do so would violate the Feds control over such item.

Page 25
The CSA requires manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, and other handlers of controlled substances to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions mandating registration with the DEA, compliance with specific production quotas, security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements. See 21 U. S. C. §§821–830; 21 CFR §1301 et seq. (2004).
How is this any different than BATFE? They are the Federal Law Enforcement Agency in charge of Alcohol, Tobacco, FIREARMS, and Explosives. If no such agency existed then maybe the States would have a leg to stand on here. I’m just not seeing it at all.

Page 26

The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, that judgment is not only rational, but “visible to the naked eye,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 563, under any commonsense appraisal of the probable consequences of such an open-ended exemption.

Has not letting each State set up their own laws on the issue of Firearms consumption done this? We as firearms consumers have become near insane!!! You can own an AK as long as it is semi-auto; unless you were lucky enough to buy a transferable one before the machine gun ban; unless you live in California (et al); then you can not have one at all; and you had to move it out of State before the State Ban, unless you registered said AK then you can have it as long as you only use it with a 10 round or less mag…I think I can learn to play Royal Fisbin easier.

Page 26
The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail.

Do we have an issue with State and Federal Laws not agreeing. Oh heck yeah!!! Again the Feds win.

Page 26
It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “ ‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,’ ” however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 426 (1925)).

It does not matter what the State thinks. Crime is out of control, the sky is falling!!! Firearms are a Federal Issue…not a State Issue when it comes to commerce.

Page 27 – 28
Respondents acknowledge this proposition, but nonetheless contend that their activities were not “an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme” because they had been “isolated by the State of California, and [are] policed by the State of California,” and thus remain “entirely separated from the market.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 27. The dissenters fall prey to similar reasoning. See n. 38, supra this page. The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition, and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected. Indeed, that the California exemptions will have a significant impact on both the supply and demand sides of the market for marijuana is not just “plausible” as the principal dissent concedes, post, at 16 (O’CONNOR, J., dissenting), it is readily apparent.

What you do in one state effects the many. California has prohibited me from selling my firearms and mags in their state because they find them offensive. Tough, California you have a huge population and that population has been cut off to me when I want to sale. California wants firearms to meet their standards which are above the Federal standards. Firearms Designers have reengineered and applied to California to be graced with that market being opened. Yep it has had an impact on supply and demand.

Link Posted: 3/13/2006 10:38:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DrFrige:
Morons in the legislature know NOTHING about firearms and passing laws. Has crime decreased since the laws were passed?

Just pisses me off more and more every day.



But guns kill people... which is why we have no right to firearms or CCW (in Los Angeles County) but legislators, celebrities and donors do because they stop crime and know how to operate weapons.

It's been pissing me off since I started shooting and frankly CA is too full of people who think along the lines of "guns kill people so ban them!!!". I guess we should start banning automobiles and butcher knives?
Link Posted: 3/13/2006 5:00:12 PM EDT
FS-FNRL

I'm curious, where is the NRA if all these legal reasons exist?
Link Posted: 3/14/2006 9:06:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nefariousnick:
FS-FNRL

I'm curious, where is the NRA if all these legal reasons exist?



I have no idea where the NRA or any other Pro Second amendment group stands on this. I have called and emailed Ronnie Barrett and got no response from him either.

I’m not an attorney but I do have a background in law. The case law is on our side when it comes to interstate commerce.
Top Top