|
Lemme get this straight. What this bill is about is making it so there would no longer be any real way to regulate the manufacture or sale of any firearm or firearm accessory that's made in the state and never leaves the state? For instance, if a suppressor is made here and never crosses the state line, you wouldn't have to send off for your tax stamp or wait a billion years for it to be approved? But it only applies to Georgia businesses and /or law enforcement agencies?
What's to keep the BATFE from sending in people to make over the counter purchases and then arresting the dealers anyway? |
|
Colorado and Washington both have legalized marijuana although it's still illegal federally. What's to stop DEA from buying pot from a Colorado pot store and arresting the dealer? What's to stop them from seeking charges on the Colorado state legislature on conspiracy to violate federal law?
None really. But as noted in the article the USSC has upheld the state laws for some 150 years. I'm no law expert, but it seems that the only area of federal authority should be in the area of interstate commerce, therefore if the product never leaves the state, there should be no authority for federal law enforcement. BTW, don't forget that Doug Collins is still looking for support on his bill to remove the "sporting purpose" language from all federal gun laws. |
|
Quoted:
Colorado and Washington both have legalized marijuana although it's still illegal federally. What's to stop DEA from buying pot from a Colorado pot store and arresting the dealer? What's to stop them from seeking charges on the Colorado state legislature on conspiracy to violate federal law? None really. But as noted in the article the USSC has upheld the state laws for some 150 years. I'm no law expert, but it seems that the only area of federal authority should be in the area of interstate commerce, therefore if the product never leaves the state, there should be no authority for federal law enforcement. BTW, don't forget that Doug Collins is still looking for support on his bill to remove the "sporting purpose" language from all federal gun laws. i think the difference is that guns are a PC issue, and drugs are "cool". i'm interested in where this goes |
|
Quoted:
i think the difference is that guns are a PC issue, and drugs are "cool". i'm interested in where this goes Quoted:
Quoted:
Colorado and Washington both have legalized marijuana although it's still illegal federally. What's to stop DEA from buying pot from a Colorado pot store and arresting the dealer? What's to stop them from seeking charges on the Colorado state legislature on conspiracy to violate federal law? None really. But as noted in the article the USSC has upheld the state laws for some 150 years. I'm no law expert, but it seems that the only area of federal authority should be in the area of interstate commerce, therefore if the product never leaves the state, there should be no authority for federal law enforcement. BTW, don't forget that Doug Collins is still looking for support on his bill to remove the "sporting purpose" language from all federal gun laws. i think the difference is that guns are a PC issue, and drugs are "cool". i'm interested in where this goes As awesome as it would be.......How would it work for registering a suppressor bought directly from AAC? Because I don't know about you guys.....there aren't exactly a lot of good places in Georgia to use a Titan on a 338. And of course there's the other thing....of having to get companies like AAC or the like to actually sell it to us with out the Tax Stamp. While the Gov might not be able to come at the end user of the can in this scenario....I'm pretty sure they could screw over the starting company fairly easily. |
|
Quoted:
As awesome as it would be.......How would it work for registering a suppressor bought directly from AAC? Because I don't know about you guys.....there aren't exactly a lot of good places in Georgia to use a Titan on a 338. And of course there's the other thing....of having to get companies like AAC or the like to actually sell it to us with out the Tax Stamp. While the Gov might not be able to come at the end user of the can in this scenario....I'm pretty sure they could screw over the starting company fairly easily. Poison- granted. However Form 1 items would theoretically become a nonissue, and there could be a few companies sprout up that capitalize on the lack of regulatory requirements. The establishes companies would wait to see what unfolds, and provided there is no federal intervention, once sales of in state goods goes up, they'll weigh the risk of staying out of the game/loss of sales vs. the threat of future prosecution. |
|
Didn't Montana and/or Wyoming pass a bill like this a couple years ago? iirc, it is largely just political games and didn't have any real effect.
In other words... fantasy. Don't get me wrong, this would be sweet. Keep given em hell GA, maybe it will end up somewhere as one of the articles said 37 states have introduced similar legislation. Googling Montanna gun law nullification came up with these results that provide a little more insight to this political tactic. http://www.propublica.org/article/nullification-how-states-are-making-it-a-felony-to-enforce-federal-gun-laws http://m.theweek.com/article.php?id=248902 |
| Need to drop the "private dealer" part of it, and I'm on board. Also, add some real teeth, and put in wording making it illegal for Federal employees to attempt to enforce federal law on those specified GA-only firearms. And add some sort of punishment. The problem with other states is that they don't add any teeth. |
|
Quoted:
Colorado and Washington both have legalized marijuana although it's still illegal federally. What's to stop DEA from buying pot from a Colorado pot store and arresting the dealer? What's to stop them from seeking charges on the Colorado state legislature on conspiracy to violate federal law? None really. But as noted in the article the USSC has upheld the state laws for some 150 years. I'm no law expert, but it seems that the only area of federal authority should be in the area of interstate commerce, therefore if the product never leaves the state, there should be no authority for federal law enforcement. BTW, don't forget that Doug Collins is still looking for support on his bill to remove the "sporting purpose" language from all federal gun laws. Personally, I agree. I think the phrase "interstate commerce" has been interpreted far beyond all reasonableness. Unfortunately, nobody on the fed.gov side of things has opted to listed to my opinions. Judging from the links above, it's going to take court cases to define whether these types of laws are constitutional, and how far they can go. I can't see the federal government actually allowing any state court to imprison it's agents for carrying out federally assigned tasks. I'd love to be able to run down to the local Academy and pick up a few suppressors for the cost of the items themselves, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon. Court cases drag on and on and public opinion is supremely fickle. While soccer moms and retirees may not give a rat's ass about who smokes what in the confines of their own home, I believe that the propaganda machine will swing into overdrive regarding icky things like fully automatic firearms, concealable rifles and shotguns, and suppressors. |
|
Quoted:
Need to drop the "private dealer" part of it, and I'm on board. Also, add some real teeth, and put in wording making it illegal for Federal employees to attempt to enforce federal law on those specified GA-only firearms. And add some sort of punishment. The problem with other states is that they don't add any teeth. The teeth would be instructing GA leo to arrest/use force against anyone attempting to break said law. |