Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Federal Firearms Act
The Federal Observer ^ | 10 February 2003 | unknown

Posted on 02/10/2003 4:30:15 PM PST by 45Auto

Where does the federal government get its Constitutional authority to enact laws such as the National Firearms Act, which has been codified to Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code? Upon whom are such laws operative, and where? Since a careful reading of the Constitution reveals that the federal government has no specifically delegated authority to regulate firearms, from where does the federal government's authority to regulate firearms come?

One would think with the high number of Americans supporting the right to keep and bear arms, this question is one that would be of some concern. We've never heard the question asked. One would think that the firearms industry would ask such a question if for no other reason than that they will surely be an industry of the past if anti-gun legislation continues to propagate. In other words, without a solution, the firearms industry as we know it today will cease to exist.

Over the last 30 years or so, laws concerning firearms have become a matter of "public policy", with no regard for the Constitutional elements involved. Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.

We also believe that Americans are not willing to challenge federal firearms laws because over the last 40 years or so, laws have been written in an ever-increasingly deceptive manner. Even laws that were clear when originally enacted have been amended over the last 40 years to remove the specificity of the law and render them more vague, and more prone to "flexible" interpretations by "cooperative" judges. Ironically, this has been done under the guise of making these laws more clear! As many laws stand today, the average American cannot understand them and attorneys generally will not explain the true meaning, lest they lose their monopolistic advantage over the machinery of the legal system.

The Federal Firearms Act (as amended) (18 USC, Chapter 44) Try as you might to find the title, "Federal Firearms Act" associated with 18 USC, chapter 44, you will not. Why then do we refer to it as such here? Many of the provisions that are currently codified to Title 18, chapter 44, were not originally codified there.

The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and it was originally codified to Title 15. So what is Title 15? It is entitled "Commerce and Trade". Do you remember that little discussion about creating vagueness where none originally existed? Well here is a stunning example. From 1938 until 1968, the Federal Firearms Act was within Title 15. That's 30 years folks! Despite the law operating just fine for 30 years, someone deemed it no longer proper to have the law contained within Title 15. Want to guess why? That's right - the government's jurisdictional limits were far too easy to ascertain when the law was within the "Commerce and Trade" title. If it wasn't moving in interstate or foreign commerce, then the US didn't have jurisdiction over it! However, by moving the Act to Title 18, and thus disconnecting the Act from the Title of "Commerce and Trade", there are few clues left to the law's original intent and its Constitutional limitations.

Despite the fact that chapter 44 of Title 18 has been amended many times, (most notably by the Gun Control Act of 1968) it is still essentially the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [ch. 850, 52 Stat. 1252].

Having said all this, there is an interesting element to Chapter 44 and its interstate commerce authority that you should know about.

There are two different definitions for interstate and foreign commerce in Title 18. The first is found in §10 of the Title and is the definition that is generally applicable through the entire Title, unless re-defined for a specific chapter or section of the Title.

18 USC §10: The term ''interstate commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term ''foreign commerce'', as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

This is a pretty clear definition - and it will get clearer as this article proceeds! Interestingly, "interstate commerce" and "foreign commerce" are redefined just for chapter 44. For use within chapter 44, they are no longer two separate items, but have been combined into one legal term, to wit:

18 USC §921(2) The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term ''State'' includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone). [emphasis and underlining added]

You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" does not mean what logic might tell you it means. You must remember that it means only what Congress says it means and nothing more!

We have had to ask ourselves why the general definition provided in §10 was inadequate for use within chapter 44. If §10 was a good enough definition for all of Title 18 generally, why is it not adequate for chapter 44?

The only distinction we find is in the use of the words "...any place in a State...". Why is that change so essential? Why go through the hassle of altering the definition just to add two little words? On the surface it doesn't seem to make sense - or does it? Maybe we should ask what "place within a State" might the definition be referring to, and why would that distinction be important? Let's explore!

Title 18, §13 is a general provision section (which means it is operative throughout the Title) and is entitled "Laws of States adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction". What does that title mean? One of the things it means is that there is "State jurisdiction" and there is "federal jurisdiction", and the two are not the same.

Before we explore §13 any further, we need to take a brief side trip and look at §7. We need to do this because §7 is specifically referred to in §13, and we'll get lost if we don't understand exactly what is being referred to in §7.

Section 7 defines the "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States". Although the definition is a bit long and wordy, here is the essential part in reference to what we are discussing in this article:

18 USC §7(3): Any lands reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof, or any place purchased or otherwise acquired by the United States by consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of a fort, magazine, arsenal, dockyard, or other needful building.

The basic meaning of that definition is any location that is not under State sovereignty, but solely under federal sovereignty, or otherwise within federal jurisdiction. It must be remembered that such federal "places" exist within the states of the Union. One should take note of the common language, and common meaning, between 18 USC §7, and Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution:

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same [federal place] shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.

Now that you can clearly see where §7 is taking us, let's go back to §13; specifically, subsection (a).

[Editor's Note: We've removed some of the excessive wordiness from §13(a) that might tend to confuse the meaning for the first-time reader.]

18 USC §13(a): Whoever within... any places... provided in section 7 of this title...not within the jurisdiction of any State...is guilty of any act or omission which, although not made punishable by any enactment of Congress, would be punishable if committed or omitted within the jurisdiction of the State...in which such place is situated...

Ah ha! Did you get that? Ladies and gentlemen, §13 (in conjunction with §7) defines the "places" that are referred to in the definition of "interstate or foreign commerce" at §921(2). The places made mention of in §921(2) are the "places...provided in section 7 of this title", which of course we now know are federal lands (and waterways) that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, but are within the geographical boundaries of the State!

Now let's do a little of our own alteration to §921(2). Let's add the specificity that the legislative draftsmen intentionally left out when they wrote the definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" (at §921(2)). Our "clarified" version reads like this:

The term ''interstate or foreign commerce'' includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is outside that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia.

Boy, that sure changes the meaning that you had of §921(2) about 10 minutes ago, doesn't it? Also, please note that after the part of the definition that addresses "States" is complete, it goes on to define other federal areas. In that portion, "interstate or foreign commerce" means commerce [solely] within any possession of the United States or within the District of Columbia! My, my, my. Congress sure defines terms to mean whatever the hell Congress wants them to mean!

Are you getting the picture? Every "place" being referred to in §921(2) is a place within a State, or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution. And the "interstate and foreign commerce" being described at §921(2), is a limited form that operates only between such "places". For the purposes of chapter 44, Congress has even defined "State" as "the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States". In short, it's all territorial.

The definition of "interstate or foreign commerce", at 921(2), is only a "red herring" placed there by the legislative draftsmen to make you think the authority is nation-wide and all-pervasive under the US Constitution's interstate commerce clause. In point of fact, certain sections of chapter 44, such as 922(o)(1), which makes the mere possession of a machine gun a crime, can only be territorial in nature because Congress has no authority to define any act that takes place within a state of the Union as a crime (except such acts as take place against federal property or persons). The federal government cannot define a crime that would take place within a state of the Union because the US has no police powers in a state of the Union.

Now do you see why it was so important that chapter 44 not use the general definition of "interstate commerce" provided at §10? Two little words - "any place" - needed to be added if the law was to pass Constitutional scrutiny.

If one reads the "Congressional Findings and Declarations" in the notes for §921, one finds that Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, and its various amendments, in order to [ostensibly] assist the States in controlling crime. Well guess what? The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to assist the States of the Union in combating crime. The federal government may regulate interstate commerce; it can define crimes that may take place upon federal property; and it can exercise police powers within places that are embraced by the "exclusive legislative control" clause, but it may not do any of that upon land that is under the sovereignty of a state of the Union.

Congress is free to make any asinine statement it wants about its "intentions" or its "goals", but the text of the laws it enacts must still adhere to the limits of federal power imposed by US Constitution.

Laws No Longer Printed You should also be made aware that the historical notes reveal there have been some significant items that were "omitted" when the statutes were transferred from Title 15 to Title 18. It should be noted that there is no legal definition for the word "omit"; therefore it can only be defined by a standard English dictionary. The first definition that appears in Webster's II New Revised University Dictionary (1994) is, "Left out". When a section or portion of a statute is "omitted" it is exactly as Webster has stated - it is merely left out. The section or portion has not been repealed; it is still in full effect - it simply isn't printed in the United States Code any more!

[Editor Note - The original language, in its entirety, can still be found in the original Statute-at-Large. See "What is the United States Code" for more on the Statutes-at-Large.]

So what are these sections that have been left out? The most interesting items left out in 1968 were subsections (f) and (i) of then section 902 (Title 15), which speaks of the rule of "presumption from possession". While we've not looked up the old section 902, our experience with such statutory "presumptions" tells us that the section likely raised a rebuttable presumption that if you were found with any firearm, suppressor, etc., that is defined in [the current] chapter 44, you acquired it through an act of "interstate or foreign commerce". Of course for a presumption to be rebutted, the accused would have to know that the US Attorney's Office and the United States District Court were functioning under a statutorily created presumption to begin with. Needless to say, that's a bit difficult when the law isn't printed in the Code any more!

The other omitted items are subsections (b) and (c) of former section 902 which prohibits, "receipt with knowledge...that the transportation or shipment was to a person without a license where State laws require prospective purchaser to exhibit a license to licensed manufacturer or dealer, respectively." You've got to love what these guys choose to keep hidden from you!

Summary Hopefully this article has helped you to understand the sophistry used when the legislative draftsmen wrote the text that now appears as chapter 44 of Title 18. Hopefully, this will assist Americans in not being wrongfully prosecuted for crimes they've never committed and hopefully this document will somehow get to the firearms industry, since it is the key to freeing that industry from the stranglehold of "public policy" law that will eventually take the industry's life, and with it the American Citizen's access to at least one form of arms.

Let's review what we've covered:

1. Title 18 of the United States Code (USC), chapter 44, has its foundation as the Federal Firearms Act.

2. The Federal Firearms Act was enacted in 1938 and was originally codified to Title 15, "Commerce and Trade".

3. In 1968, most of the Federal Firearms Act was repealed and reenacted in Title 18.

4. Certain elements of the Federal Firearms Act were never repealed, but are no longer printed in the USC. [This is why one must always read the actual Act of Congress to see what they're really up to.]

5. Since 1968, chapter 44 has been amended numerous times, usually under the disingenuous rationale of securing the rights of law abiding gun owners!

6. The foundation of the federal government's authority in chapter 44 is territorial, i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.

7. Chapter 44 does contain a certain limited form of commerce authority, but it only controls commerce between federal places within States, or commerce within a federal possession, or the District of Columbia.

8. The definition of "interstate and foreign commerce" at §921(2) does not refer to the government's Constitutional authority to regulate commerce between the states of the Union. It is a territorial based power that relies on the federal government's police powers, which exist only within those places that are subject to the exclusive legislative authority of Congress.

9. The "declarations" or "findings" that Congress may issue have absolutely no bearing upon the words of an Act Congress passes. Such declarations and findings may contain any manner of outrageous lies or distortions, but the language of the laws that Congress passes must still adhere to the Constitution.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; bang; banglist; federalfirearmsact; firearms; firearmsact; guns; rights; rkba; secondamendment
Need Freeper Attorney(s) to interpret this.
1 posted on 02/10/2003 4:30:16 PM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.
2 posted on 02/10/2003 4:33:59 PM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abundy; *bang_list
Care to take a shot?
3 posted on 02/10/2003 4:41:46 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Hell's Bell's! Are you just noticing this?

The Federal Government can't regulate, food, tobacco, alcohol or marijuana either but it does.
4 posted on 02/10/2003 4:44:06 PM PST by The Shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
1. The power to tax.

2. The power to regulate interstate commerce.

These two add up to unlimited federal power so long as the courts are willing to go along.

5 posted on 02/10/2003 4:52:31 PM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Short answer:

Because we have never had a sufficient amount of Supreme Court Justices who know how to read on the eighth grade level, gun groups have refused to push the issue. Where the issue was a clear violation of our Rights, the Supreme Court, with it's liberal judges, have simply refused to hear the case.

Look for the libs, more than anyone, to try to push for a Second Amendment ruling. This may be their only chance with 5-4 odds to get a ruling that will doom gun owners forever.
6 posted on 02/10/2003 4:53:23 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Shootist
Actually I think the power to regulate alcohol is at least partially proper ... when Prohibition was repealed, the repealing amendment stated something about "shall be enforced by appropriate legislation." So the A in the ATF is Consitutional, by amendment. But the T and F in ATF are not legit, and everything in the DEA is not legit.
7 posted on 02/10/2003 4:57:55 PM PST by coloradan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Squantos; harpseal; Lion Den Dan; logos; pocat; Travis McGee; Jeff Head
Check this one out...

SR

8 posted on 02/10/2003 5:05:01 PM PST by sit-rep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
This is business as usual for the Federal Government and the only reason this crap gets over is that Americans have been asleep at the switch for too long. And if you think this is bad, take a look at what the states are doing. Does anybody here know what the difference is between a duly enacted "session law" and the "Revised Statutes" or "General Laws" or whatever they charge you with violating in one of the several states and what the requirement under state constitutions is for a law to be duly enacted? No? I thought so. Too bad for you, pay the clerk on the way out.
9 posted on 02/10/2003 5:05:20 PM PST by agitator (Ok, mic check...line one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
"This may be their only chance with 5-4 odds to get a ruling that will doom gun owners forever."

The founding fathers had a feeling that it would be difficult to "doom" a man with a gun.

10 posted on 02/10/2003 5:09:18 PM PST by groanup (It's not how much you make it's how much you keep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: agitator
This is business as usual for the Federal Government and the only reason this crap gets over is that Americans have been asleep at the switch for too long.

If Americans have been asleep at the switch, its because the OldDominantLiberalMedia has been feeding them sleeping pills for 70 years. People can only make decisions based on what they know. If the OldDominantLiberalMedia were supportive of a constitutional government, instead of trying to create a socialist mediacracy, no judge would be able to get away with the rulings that they have, no legislature would be elected to do the unconstituional things they do.

11 posted on 02/10/2003 5:23:43 PM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Shootist
No, I've seen this crap for the last 40 years; the only thing that bothers me is that we, as a nation, don't seem to care a whit about Constitutional limitations on government; is it because we are all "on the take" from the public treasury? Or because we figure we all have an economic stake in the doomed Social Security pie? Or is it simply because we all lack the will to really have it out once again, like the Founders did? Maybe we all really believe that the "government" is some benign, fatherly despot that only wants to do things for "our own good"?
12 posted on 02/10/2003 5:25:31 PM PST by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
You should recognize that as a legal term, the phrase "interstate or foreign commerce" [...] means only what Congress says it means and nothing more!

And the Constitution means only what the SCOTUS says it means, shadows and penumbras and all, and nothing more.

So this raises the question: Are we living in the nation bequeathed to us by the Founders, or in something else?

13 posted on 02/10/2003 5:32:18 PM PST by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Replace "all" (clearly false) with "generally" (what I believe is true), and I think you have the answer.
14 posted on 02/10/2003 5:35:23 PM PST by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
It's not only the media's fault. I have patiently tried explaining this racket to people before and their eyes glaze over because they're intellectually lazy and don't recognize their duty as an American to pay attention to what is going on around them. Now that things are completely out of control, the courts and lawmakers have become players in the Theater of the Absurd and people wonder why.
15 posted on 02/10/2003 5:44:13 PM PST by agitator (Ok, mic check...line one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep; Squantos; harpseal; Lion Den Dan; logos; pocat; Travis McGee; 45Auto; Eala; agitator; ...
"Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void ..." - MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137

That's all I have to say.

Jeff

THE FIREARMS RESTORATION ACT

16 posted on 02/10/2003 6:22:48 PM PST by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep
Thanks Tim!
17 posted on 02/10/2003 6:39:54 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: groanup; Shooter 2.5
Eventually all of this tortured legalese may be superceded by Rule 308 if the Constitution shredders go too far.
18 posted on 02/10/2003 6:41:59 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
#16: BINGO!
19 posted on 02/10/2003 6:43:13 PM PST by Travis McGee (DICTATORS LOVE PACIFISTS: THEY ARE THE EASIEST TO KILL.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeLawyer; Abundy
bttt
20 posted on 02/10/2003 6:44:22 PM PST by Travis McGee (--------------VISUALIZE TRAITORS HANGING FROM LAMP POSTS----------------)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
"Eventually all of this tortured legalese may be superceded by Rule 308 if the Constitution shredders go too far"

History shows that Rule 308, when enforced by good men, is not ignored by tyrants.

21 posted on 02/10/2003 6:54:10 PM PST by groanup (It's not how much you make it's how much you keep.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: groanup
That is the short synopsis of my novel.


22 posted on 02/10/2003 6:59:33 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; groanup
I've always been in favor of Proposition 223. The wording of the proposition allows the concerned citizen to vote as many times as he or she feels necessary. ;-)
23 posted on 02/10/2003 7:06:08 PM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
Yeah, I like Prop 223 also!
24 posted on 02/10/2003 7:08:57 PM PST by Travis McGee (BLOAT, cache, and take names!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Goes good with this goodie...

Gun laws a minefield for military (California Bans Guns in Military!)

25 posted on 02/10/2003 7:22:43 PM PST by spartan68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Thanks for the ping. I'll have to read this later and report back.
26 posted on 02/10/2003 7:40:01 PM PST by ConservativeLawyer (God Bless our Troops and keep them safe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
Why aren't more Americans challenging federal gun laws? We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so.

Not exactly. The reason is the court system was corrupted long ago by the merging of common law and equity law; resulting (supposedly to bring conformity and simplicity to the judicial system)in a barrier being placed between citizens and the Constitution in the court room. If you don't beleive it; try asserting your consitutional rights the next time you end up in court. The judge will tell you he will not stand for such frivolous talk.

Too much to go into great detail here, but the watershed event was the Enabling act of 1934; which effectively supports (through smoke and mirrors unconsitutional legislative and judicial actions like the income tax; NFA etc.

The Enabling act was served up to congress in late 1933 under dubious circumstances. The ABA had been lobbying for it since 1912; but could not get it through the Senate until Conservative Democrat Senator Walsh of Montana (Head of Senate Judiciary Committe) got out of the way.

Walsh got out of the way by dying of a cerebral hemmorage on his way to confirmation for AG of the US in December 1933. He was immediately replaced by Hommer Cummings (a long time proponent of the merging of common law and equity since the Wilson days - even wrote a book about it) who immediately set out serving up the Enabling Act legislation to congress.

The proposed legislation, as served up by Cummings, went through Congress like $hit thru a goose (there were some detractors of record however). Also, keep in mind what Rosevelt did in March 1933, and that Congress declared the US bankrupt.

The Enabling Act instructed the Supreme Court to set up Federal Rules that were eventually addopted by all states by 1983. The initial rules were started in 1935 and completed by 1938. Even the ABA was miffed about the new change of direction in the Federal Courts in their October 1938 review (ABA publication) of the Thompkins vs Erie decision.

By the way. Hommer Cummings was also the spearhead of the onerous Miller decision that affirmed the NFA of 1934. Of course, the defendants in that decision were never informed to appear before the Supreme Court.

An Arkansas Distirct Federal Judge had slapped down the Miller case under a Demurr (defendants proved feds lacked jurisdiction). Undauanted, Cummings underlings stealhfully had the case served up before the US Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, seems no one could find or took the effort to notify the original defendants (Miller and Latham)so the Miller case went before the Supreme Court virtually unapposed.

The rest is history.

Sui

27 posted on 02/10/2003 7:53:46 PM PST by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"from where does the federal government's authority to regulate firearms come?"

It comes from ignorance
It comes from indifference
It comes from fear and
It comes from the barrel of the gun in the feds hand.
28 posted on 02/10/2003 8:08:25 PM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Well, no.

We have a very good chance of getting some decent U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I don't know how many but we might have the administration for six more years and maybe longer than that. It's still very much up to the ballot box.

Think about that for a minute. After over forty years, and longer if you want to think about Miller vs. the U.S., we can get 6 to 4 rulings[or better] on Second Amendment issues for decades.
29 posted on 02/10/2003 8:14:19 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Uh, 6 to 3.
30 posted on 02/10/2003 8:17:12 PM PST by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Great Cover. Can't wait to get my copy!! PING
31 posted on 02/10/2003 8:21:56 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: suijuris
Please suggest a book for further reading on the topic of your post. Thanks!
32 posted on 02/10/2003 8:23:46 PM PST by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I'm an old fool but the 2nd Amendment couldn't be any clearer to me. The Right to bare arms shall not be infringed. And a militia isn't the National Guard. Any gun regulation ever passed is contrary to the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
33 posted on 02/10/2003 8:25:18 PM PST by oyez (Is this a great country...........Or what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: agitator
I've been visiting Free Republic for about 1 1/2 years but have only recently started posting.

"I have patiently tried explaining this racket to people before and their eyes glaze over..."

That's what's great about this forum. Everyone who participates is interested. I have had the same problem, putting people to sleep with the details and find their eyes glaze over when discussing items not nearly as in depth as this. Most of the people that I talk to are shooters, hunters, conservatives and moderates that at least recognize the Constitution. I can hand them articles of great interest on the subject and they hand them right back after only a cursory glance out of courtesy. I won't waste my time with those beyond hope. Disbelief as to how bad it really is, intellectually lazy or Pollyannas? I can't say, but it can get frustrating.

34 posted on 02/10/2003 8:27:28 PM PST by Ches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
"We believe it is because The People of this great nation have an innate understanding that the federal judiciary is corrupt and will not honor the Constitution when required to do so."

Worth repeating.
35 posted on 02/10/2003 10:44:27 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican (Arm Up! They Have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
"Rule 308"

Yeah, what Travis said. BTW, seriously busy month, but reading...report later.
36 posted on 02/10/2003 10:45:40 PM PST by PatrioticAmerican (Arm Up! They Have!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: suijuris
Thanks for the history lesson, and please don't be a stranger!
37 posted on 02/10/2003 10:49:17 PM PST by Travis McGee (I have to click off and get back to writing my book.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Cranking chapters out in smooth form is going SLOWLY.
38 posted on 02/10/2003 10:51:27 PM PST by Travis McGee (I have to click off and get back to writing my book.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
That would be great. You will note I said "may," and "if".
39 posted on 02/10/2003 10:55:19 PM PST by Travis McGee (I have to click off and get back to writing my book.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
And yet, most of the people here bemoaning the sad plight of the law concerning the 2nd Amendment, voted for a Presidency and a Congress which has passed a monstrously unconstutional "patriot" act which does more to wipe out our rights than a century of gun control has done....
40 posted on 02/10/2003 10:55:59 PM PST by Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
LOL......Don't take this personal but your post reminded me of an old Albert Einstein quote:

If A equals success, then the formula is: A=X+Y+Z. X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut........;o)

Stay Safe !!

41 posted on 02/10/2003 11:18:57 PM PST by Squantos (RKBA the original version of Homeland Security .....the one proven method that works !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ches
I can't say, but it can get frustrating.

I know what you mean. It's worse with non-shooters. Years ago (when I was in school!) I had a discussion about the 2A with a friend. She had written a paper in favor of gun control (the usual left wing liberal social sciences paper), and I mentioned that the 2A was an individual right. She thought I was crazy because, in her mind, everyone knew that is was a collective right for state forces. I discussed Miller, and she had never heard of it. I went to a law library and printed a copy of it and handed it to her. She never read it, even after I placed it in her hand.

42 posted on 02/11/2003 8:19:53 AM PST by Stat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Stat-boy
"She never read it"

Obviously she prefers having her head in the sand or somewhere else where the sun don't shine.

43 posted on 02/11/2003 3:19:26 PM PST by Ches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
"sworn to uphold and defend is the Constitution of the United States of America"

If only those under this oath analyzed it and took it as seriously as you do, our country would be much healthier.

Out of curiousity, how do the GIs in general respond to your stand? It appears that among civilians it is very easy to be branded as some kind of nut or "extreme right wing fanatic" if you even mention the Constitution in terms of guarantees of individual rights. Suggesting that many under oath are subverting the supreme law of the land will get you a free rectal exam by the bureaucrats.

At times I become very optimistic that the official shenanigans will become so obvious that even the sheep will come to recognize how bad it is. Then I run into someone looking for a free lunch and personal security provided by government and realize there will be no spontaneous awakening. All we can do is continue to educate at every opportunity. It is a big task to overcome the public education system and the volumes of social legislation. I am disgusted, but not discouraged. We can win this struggle.

46 posted on 02/12/2003 6:22:45 AM PST by Ches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ches
BTT
47 posted on 02/12/2003 6:40:01 AM PST by Ches
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: All
bttt
49 posted on 07/21/2003 6:40:09 PM PDT by Coleus (God is Pro Life and Straight and gave an innate predisposition for self-preservation and protection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: groanup; bang_list; everyone
Look for the NRA's gun appeasers , more than anyone, to try to push ~against~ a USSC 2nd Amendment ruling.

They seem to think that their only chance to get a favorable ruling is to 'pack' the Court. That will never happen, and will doom gun owners to ever more of the regulatory nightmare we endure today.

The NRA prospers by 'fighting' the regulators, a little bit at a time, to yet another gun grabbing draw.

Appeasement doesn't work.
50 posted on 07/21/2003 7:09:36 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be Mr Nice Guy, but principles keep getting in me way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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