Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun possession law revolt among U.S. States
Examiner.com ^ | March 11, 2010 | Martha

Posted on 03/11/2010 9:38:05 AM PST by usalady

An increasing number of U.S. states are revolting against the Federal Government's attempts to control the possession of firearms.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 2010; ammunition; banglist; bootthebatfe; democrats; donttreadonme; examiner; gunlaws; guns; obama; shallnotbeinfringed; statesrights
Individual states are adopting laws exempting guns and ammunition made, sold and used in the state from federal regulations under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
1 posted on 03/11/2010 9:38:05 AM PST by usalady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: usalady

BFL


2 posted on 03/11/2010 9:39:46 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM, where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usalady

Delicious! I hope FL takes note and follows suit.


3 posted on 03/11/2010 9:44:06 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usalady

Purchased my pistol in Tx in late 80’s, moved to WA state, back to Tx, then to Utah. How do they know that I didn’t sell that pistol in a private transaction last week?


4 posted on 03/11/2010 9:47:11 AM PST by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Such laws will no doubt be found overruled by federal law, but they do serve notice that any gun-ban tactics by Obama will be resolutely defeated.


5 posted on 03/11/2010 9:49:17 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: usalady

ATF’s answer. We don’t care, try and stop us.


6 posted on 03/11/2010 9:53:46 AM PST by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad

I don’t believe SCOTUS has a say over state laws. The whole point of this is to assert 10th amendment rights wherein the States call the shots.


7 posted on 03/11/2010 9:58:08 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: usalady

I lost mine in a very unfortunate boating accident... sad, sad day. My guns are in a better place.


8 posted on 03/11/2010 9:58:56 AM PST by mikelets456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usalady

I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).

Arizona has had an almost doubling of conceal carrys this past years as well as the same in open carry reported by police.

GREAT!


9 posted on 03/11/2010 9:58:59 AM PST by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: usalady

I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).

Arizona has had an almost doubling of conceal carrys this past years as well as the same in open carry reported by police.

GREAT!


10 posted on 03/11/2010 9:59:47 AM PST by jongaltsr (It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

What do you think Roe v Wade was all about?


11 posted on 03/11/2010 10:03:19 AM PST by rw4site (Little men want Big Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

If state law conflicts with federal law, SCOTUS certainly does have a say!


12 posted on 03/11/2010 10:04:55 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rw4site; RanGreHad

I wasn’t born when Roe v Wade took place, so I can’t answer to it. This issue is one on state sovereignty. I don’t see how a State could pass a law like this, asserting sovereignty, only to have SCOTUS beat it back.

My impression, when reading these articles, is that the States wish for legal exemption from Federal regulations. If they can’t do that, then why would they even try?


13 posted on 03/11/2010 10:09:18 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr

>I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).

Let them see {and explain about it} but not touch. It is the unfamiliarity with weapons and the “gasp-response” which condition “the kids” to believe that guns are bad.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say let them touch... after disassembling it to show/explain how it works. (Provided that it’s not inappropriate to turn it into a learning-experience/teaching-session AND not in danger of damaging the weapon or its functionality.)

The main strength of the gun-control crowd is the ignorance, of the general population, regarding guns.


14 posted on 03/11/2010 10:13:23 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mikelets456

You DO realize how silly that comment is, don’t you? The day you actually need to USE that excuse is several days after you should have been USING your guns.


15 posted on 03/11/2010 10:13:39 AM PST by Axeslinger (Where has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad

>I am making an effort to open carry as well as conceal carry and it works. No adult has said anything and all the kids want to see my gun and want to know if I am a cop or FBI agent. (Of course I don’t let them see or touch).

And what if that federal law conflicts with the federal Constitution? I have a particular example regarding state law and state Constitution; my state’s Constitution forbids laws abridging carrying arms for defense, and yet there is a state statute which prohibits firearms on campus.


16 posted on 03/11/2010 10:16:42 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Oh sorry, the previous should have been:
>If state law conflicts with federal law, SCOTUS certainly does have a say!

I guess I didn’t fully press Ctrl-C.


17 posted on 03/11/2010 10:19:12 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Please consult Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. If Congress occupies, or partially occupies a field of law, state laws that conflict are unconstitutional. States are issuing “shots across the bow” to warn off Obama against new gun laws, in my view. Btw, there is much you can read about Roe even though you were born after it!


18 posted on 03/11/2010 10:19:23 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The constitution says if not specific power to feds then the states own it. The judges over time have let the commerce clause mean what ever the feds have wanted. Time to test it again. then at some point, test it in the real world of enforcement.


19 posted on 03/11/2010 10:21:01 AM PST by rlbedfor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Of course they do.

Remeber “Lawrence”?


20 posted on 03/11/2010 10:21:45 AM PST by Adder (Proudly ignoring Zero since 1-20-09! WTFU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jongaltsr
good on ya jon...

very shortly my OC routine will be in place as well...

21 posted on 03/11/2010 10:21:52 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad

Of course the fed judiciary is going to over rule the states. The point is what occurs in the field when the law is tested. I suspect it’ll end in a shoot out or nearly so. Then there’s the state response...will they roll over or give the fed the single finger salute? The various states presumably didn’t go thru this exercise just to play dead. I think things are nearly at a tipping point and it won’t take much more from DC to start some real trouble.


22 posted on 03/11/2010 10:22:08 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad

Thanks for the clarification. Seems really... dumb... to me. What’s to stop the FedGuv from doing what they’ve done heretofore with Commerce Clause garbage, etc. That doesn’t strike me as something our Founders intended.

As far as Roe, I’m not interested. I know where I stand on the issue, and there’s nothing that the finding needs to tell me except that women can legally destroy a life.


23 posted on 03/11/2010 10:25:28 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

I fully support your efforts to carry legally. if Congress began legislating on carrying, a strong argument could be made that Congress exceeded its authority, and that the commerce clause does not apply. But many states have reciprocity agreements with other states on carrying, so it remains an open question whether Congress could legislate on the matter.


24 posted on 03/11/2010 10:26:01 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: usalady

BTTT.


25 posted on 03/11/2010 10:26:32 AM PST by rbosque (11 year Freeper! Combat Economist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

You might want to consider American history, 1861-1865. It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.


26 posted on 03/11/2010 10:30:18 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad

I’d like to see a do-over on that.


27 posted on 03/11/2010 10:31:43 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (We're all heading toward red revolution - we just disagree on which type of Red we want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

My personal view is that the commerce clause has been badly abused. FDR wanted the power, and SCOTUS upheld the New Deal laws. So there it is. If SCOTUS severely restricts the cc, it will create a profound change in the United States.


28 posted on 03/11/2010 10:35:01 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

LOL!


29 posted on 03/11/2010 10:37:29 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: usalady

That reminds me; our former Sheriff is now Lt. Governor. I’ll have to apply for a carry permit to see if anything’s changed with our new county Sheriff.

New Jersey’s “may issue” is typically more like “may issue but probably won’t”.


30 posted on 03/11/2010 10:39:15 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., hot enough down there today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake

ping


31 posted on 03/11/2010 10:50:44 AM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad

Any recommendations for “light” reading on the Commerce Clause? I’d like a neutral write up, but I wouldn’t care if it’s slanted. I’ve been socialized in the school systems already.


32 posted on 03/11/2010 10:56:30 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Roe v Wade pertained to a Texas law denying abortions and was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

As the SCOTUS found the right of women to have abortions in the Constitution where it doesn’t exist, they could well find that the 10th and 2nd do not apply to the states. They’re wrong, but they make the rules. So far anyway.

IMHO this subject is about state sovereignty and is backed by the Constitution.


33 posted on 03/11/2010 11:02:56 AM PST by rw4site (Little men want Big Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

You might look at James M. Burns, “FDR: The Lion and the Fox,” a pro-FDR biography, but it will give you information on how the commerce clause was used as a vehicle to promote the New Deal. You might check up on how the Brady Law uses the commerce clause—books by John Lott (google them).


34 posted on 03/11/2010 11:10:04 AM PST by RanGreHad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rw4site
I am always amazed at conservatives worrying about whenther the 2amd was meant to apply to the states or just to Congress. It is the one amendment with universal wording. Other amendments place prohibitions specifically on Congress-"Congress shall make no law..." 2Amd says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." There is no mention of Congress or anyone else. It is a universal prohibition. I used to think that private property owners could ban carry on their property but that amendment says "shall not be infringed" - infringed by whom? infringed by anyone at all. There are no limits on who may not infringe. It does not limit who may or may not infringe nor does it limit against whom there may or may not be infringement.
35 posted on 03/11/2010 11:31:00 AM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad

“It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.”

Which is why the people in the federal government had best remember that as they are seriously outnumbered.


36 posted on 03/11/2010 12:09:47 PM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RanGreHad
It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.

It seldom ends well for the losers in a war.

37 posted on 03/11/2010 12:17:16 PM PST by meyer ("It's not enough just to not suck as much as the other side" - G. Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Interesting FYI on Roe...the backers of Roe went to federal court and up front admitted they went that way cause it would be too expensive to go state by state...


38 posted on 03/11/2010 4:52:56 PM PST by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Thanks bamahead. Primarily a recap of much of what we have already discussed here. Always good to see the issue getting more “face time” though. Added our “10thamendment” tag for future reference.


39 posted on 03/11/2010 10:10:10 PM PST by ForGod'sSake (You have two choices and two choices only: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Which is why the people in the federal government had best remember that as they are seriously outnumbered.

Numbers mean nothing, FRiend. If there isn't a fire in the belly of those willing to fight, then the message will never get out and most of us would just assume give up our rights to "live," instead of facing a hail of bullets.

Personally, I'll take the Henry Bowman road out of town.

40 posted on 03/12/2010 4:54:40 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

If I had to guess - and it’s ONLY a guess - I’d say there are some state legislatures and officials who see the writing on the wall as far as the extremist policies coming out of this administration and are taking steps now to keep the FEDS in check. Just a guess.


41 posted on 03/23/2010 8:42:26 PM PDT by JLLH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson