Posted: 7/17/2009 8:30:33 AM EDT
 |
|
Well, that's what they of course would say. The courts will decide the truth, and IMO the outcome will be solely determined by the corruption of the judge(s). No one who understands what the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution means (and it's pretty clear) can side with the feds on this one. If the judge(s) do side with the feds, it is solely a case of "siding with the team" to grant more unwarranted power to their side. Why would you vote for your team to have less power than the other team? Only if you have high moral fortitude and understand the original intent of the 10th would you do so.
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.
The federal-side fix? Pass an amendment incorporating federal gun law power into the US Constitution. That would make the 10th not apply, as gun banning/regulating would then be a power granted by the Constitution. OR, do the same, but word it so states have no rights to regulate guns. That takes the 10th off the plate too. |
|
Well the argument is the 10th has been effectively dead for a long time, so are we going to start taking it seriously or not. Guns just happen to be a good starting point to a LOT of "how is the fed doing this" legislation. It's linign up to be a good old fashioned fight betwen the supreme Court and congress. Last time those two squared off the Americans lost... |
Does that signature look wrong to anyone else? The name under it is Carson W. Carroll, but the signature looks like it reads, "Jefrey Stark" or something. That looks NOTHING like a 'C' at the start of the first word, an 'n' at the end of it, a 'C' at the start of the last word, nor an 'l' at the end of it. 
The initials to the left side may be his, however. If the boss was out of town, wouldn't you wait until he got back to sign/issue something this important, so it looked legitimate? |
|
Quoted:
It also say "For". I sign things for other lawyers ALL the time... That's a "for" there? Jeez. Someone needs to print, so we can actually read it. His name isn't printed anywhere either, so it looks to me like someone faked it or it's not really official. Anyway, not trying to derail the thread - sorry, please proceed. I see what it is now. 
|
|
I'd really like to see some backing for the 10th ammendment, to give the state back their rights for what occurs in the individual states, is manufactured in the state, and remains in the state.
California drug legalization and taxation may be another avenue. Even though I think CA is pretty messed up, and I'm generally anti-drug, they are encroaching on DEA/FDA turf, and this could be a 10th ammendment gateway as well. |
|
Quoted:
.......and I am almost 100% positive that DKing has heard of the Commerce Clause. Does the commerce clause not just allow them to regulate INTERstate commerce, though (as well as with tribes and foreign nations)? That's why the "made in TN, stays in TN" law that is the reason for the ATF letter above was feasible in the first place. How does the commerce clause apply here? |
|
If it exists it effects interstate commerce. Kinda like butterflys in China changing the weather, but that interpretation flys in the face of the 10th amendment. It's time to reconcile the amendments in a meaningful way instead of haphazard incorporation and federal power grabbing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
.......and I am almost 100% positive that DKing has heard of the Commerce Clause. Does the commerce clause not just allow them to regulate INTERstate commerce, though (as well as with tribes and foreign nations)? That's why the "made in TN, stays in TN" law that is the reason for the ATF letter above was feasible in the first place. How does the commerce clause apply here? As much as I don't like the Commerce Clause on principle, I have to point out that it has done a LOT of good over the years. I am sure it has been abused too, but my gut feeling is that it has done more good than harm. As to your specific question, you cannot guarantee the item would never cross state lines. Accountant |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
.......and I am almost 100% positive that DKing has heard of the Commerce Clause. Does the commerce clause not just allow them to regulate INTERstate commerce, though (as well as with tribes and foreign nations)? That's why the "made in TN, stays in TN" law that is the reason for the ATF letter above was feasible in the first place. How does the commerce clause apply here? As much as I don't like the Commerce Clause on principle, I have to point out that it has done a LOT of good over the years. I am sure it has been abused too, but my gut feeling is that it has done more good than harm. As to your specific question, you cannot guarantee the item would never cross state lines. Accountant If it wasn't produced for interstate trade, if it slips through a crack, or illegaly crosses a border, is that commerce? |
|
This is some funny shit. According to this thread in the suppressors forum. NFA items (suppressors, SBR, SBS, & FA) is illegal in TN, unless it is included in the NFA registry. So, even w/ TN's new law, they still can't make or own the good toys without .gov's approval.
All of this was for nothing! 
Accountant |
|
Quoted: This is some funny shit. According to this thread in the suppressors forum. NFA items (suppressors, SBR, SBS, & FA) is illegal in TN, unless it is included in the NFA registry. So, even w/ TN's new law, they still can't make or own the good toys without .gov's approval. All of this was for nothing! Accountant How is it for nothing? |
|
Quoted:
Not a lawyer but I believe I've read somewhere that the "Commerce Clause" can apply where a product not marketed across state lines can affect the market of similar/related items marketed across state lines and as such affects the commerce of same. Meaning anything that was ever produced for sale or for personal use that could ever be sold (everything everywhere) affects interstate commerce? Do you think the feds even buy this crap, or do they snicker about it and roll their eyes at each other when the interstate commerce clause is mentioned? |