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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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