Posted on 11/22/2016 6:29:40 PM PST by Kevin in California
The federal trial of a Kansas man for manufacturing and selling firearms and silencers without a federal license could very well turn out to be the pivotal case that not only challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934, but also every federal firearms law ever passed in a battle that will determine whether it is the states or the federal government that has the constitutional right to pass gun laws.
Wouldn’t THAT be Suh-WEEEEET....!
crossing fingers and toes..!
Those of us stuck in blue states - for whatever reason - need the federal government to come down hard on state infringements.
GOOD!!!!!
You need, however, to argue the correct part of the Law. A4:S2:C1 is the part of the Constitution that requires the several States to continue to honor the P&I that were when the language was ratified. That would include the right to bear Arms.
The states have n more right to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms than does the Federal Government. The RKBA “shall not be infringed. The wording is absolute. Not the FedGov, not the states, not the towns, not corporations or stores or anyone else may infringe on the RKBA. There is no exception for convicted felons or any other persons not incarcerated and subject to the involuntary servitude provision. When Hannity demands that existing laws be enforced rather than pass new laws he is arguing positively for already massive infringement in preference to the proposed infringements.
You sound like someone who knows what he’s talking about. Alas, I’m not a lawyer. I’m just a poor sod who’s struck in a blue state.
First you need 5 justices that know what “shall not be infringed” means.
There are millions who don’t know what “natural born citizen means”, including a surprising number of FReepers.
You also need to find 5 Justices that acknowledge the intent and function of the 10th Amendment.
Now, unless you're a moron, you wouldn't do that! But, concealed is a different story. If it's concealed, it's concealed and unless they search you, they would never know!
Isn't this a chicken/egg scenario?
The Constitution limits the federal government, but federal law supersedes state law.
IMHO, the 10th Amendment shouldn’t affect the 2nd Amendment.
The Court finds it easy to give government power and really difficult to take any power away. How else did we get Wickard v. Filburn?
see:
An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him. The Supreme Court stated “The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated” and later “Whether the subject of the regulation in question was ‘production’, ‘consumption’, or ‘marketing’ is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us ... [b]ut even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’.”[4]
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The Court decided that Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn’s relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn’s production could be regulated by the federal government....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
True.
Actually, there being no delegated power given the federal for gun control legislation affecting those among the several States is why the 10th is controlling Law.
The federal government has no delegated power to regulate commerce within a State or to regulate anything that is not properly commerce among the several States ... not even non-commercial activities that influence commerce.
If it's concealed how would you know? And, if it's your house I'd either respect your wishes or not visit.
You need to take your anti-gun rhetoric somewhere else. I hear DU is open again!
Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, by its plain wording, is not subject to infringement by federal, state, or local law, nor by judicial fiat. What part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear?
- to the author of the excerpt, not to Kevin.
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.