limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
I checked his voting record, it seems he voted aghinst some pro gun legislation
Ron Paul?
- Thread starter limbaughfan
- Start date
- Status
He voted against the "Protection of Lawful Commerce Act" on very sound Constitutional grounds.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html
He is one of the only true pro gun Congressman. This has been a major point of contention with the NRA for me.
Read the link, then, name a more pro gun Congressman.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul91.html
He is one of the only true pro gun Congressman. This has been a major point of contention with the NRA for me.
Read the link, then, name a more pro gun Congressman.
Zundfolge
Member
He voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act because he believed it was unconstitutional for the Fed.Gov to interfere in such matters. Not because he believed these law suits were a good thing.
EDIT: Damn ... instaposted by hoji
EDIT: Damn ... instaposted by hoji
limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
yep
Autolycus
Member
If ever he decides to run for President he has my vote.
cuchulainn
Member
He's not going to run.
RE: pro gun voting
Just because the current "gun lobby" or others are pushing a bill and call it "pro gun" does not necessarily means it is constitutional or in the interests of those who own firearms. I could cite examples other than that noted by hoji. I would have voted against and actively opposed them as well.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Just because the current "gun lobby" or others are pushing a bill and call it "pro gun" does not necessarily means it is constitutional or in the interests of those who own firearms. I could cite examples other than that noted by hoji. I would have voted against and actively opposed them as well.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
cuchulainn
Member
The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act is constitutional.
It involves proper use of the Interstate Commerce clause (yes, most uses in recent decades have been wrong) -- the feds are stopping people from abusing state courts to disrupt free commerce between the states.
Should tort reform be left up to the states -- I'd say yes in most cases. But when tort becomes a means to disrupt interstate commerce, no. That's a federal issue. This is consistent with the SCOTUS decision in the pro-gun decision United States v. Lopez, which limits federal insterstate commerce actions to regulating:
Should it be OK to use New York law to stop commerce between Alabama and Mississippi? That's what the anti-gun lawsuits are trying to do -- put an industry out of business, even in states where the business is welcome.
P.S. the link to the Lew Rockwell page doesn't address the constitutional issues much at all besides vague reference -- it's simply Paul's diatribe against increasing federal powers. I mostly agree with Paul on that, but he doesn't address the constitutional issues.
It involves proper use of the Interstate Commerce clause (yes, most uses in recent decades have been wrong) -- the feds are stopping people from abusing state courts to disrupt free commerce between the states.
Should tort reform be left up to the states -- I'd say yes in most cases. But when tort becomes a means to disrupt interstate commerce, no. That's a federal issue. This is consistent with the SCOTUS decision in the pro-gun decision United States v. Lopez, which limits federal insterstate commerce actions to regulating:
- the channels of commerce,
- the instrumentalities of commerce, and
- action that substantially affects interstate commerce (at issue here).
Should it be OK to use New York law to stop commerce between Alabama and Mississippi? That's what the anti-gun lawsuits are trying to do -- put an industry out of business, even in states where the business is welcome.
P.S. the link to the Lew Rockwell page doesn't address the constitutional issues much at all besides vague reference -- it's simply Paul's diatribe against increasing federal powers. I mostly agree with Paul on that, but he doesn't address the constitutional issues.
xd9fan
Member
Ron Paul
God if there EVER was a cause for cloning....
God if there EVER was a cause for cloning....
Deavis
Member
I would agree with you except that in Raich they used that exact phrase to justify the entire WOD could be compromised by medicinal pot that is aquired with a state issued license in limited quantity. I'm sorry, that is not how I envision substancially affecting interstate commerce. I do not think that the interestate commerce clause was intended to be expanded in the way that it has been since Wickard.
Further, I don't see how the lawsuits in NY are affecting the gun trade in Alabama. Glock and all those companies can stop selling in NY and avoid all the issues until NY changes its laws. The laws of NY are not forbidding the sale of guns between Alabama and Mississippi. Maybe you can elaborate a bit since I'm not on the same page as you are?
cuchulainn
Member
Because the gun companies are small to medium sized business that cannot absorb the costs of multiple lawsuits in multiple states -- even by settling. Big-time lawsuits are designed to put them out of business everywhere, not just in the states where the suits are brung.
They are when the New York and other states' court systems are being abused in ways that threaten to put companies out of business.
The anti-gun lawsuits are nothing short of predatory. They are designed -- specifically -- to severely damage gun companies' abilities to take part in interstate commerce.
They are a purposeful attack on interstate commerce.
The commerce clause has been abused for decades. That's wrong. It should be stopped.
However, it was intended to allow the feds to step in when states or organizations were acting in bad-faith in deliberate attempts to harm interstate commerce. That's what we have with the anti-gun lawsuits.
telomerase
Member
If you had voted for either of his opponents your vote would have been worse than wasted!
cbsbyte
Member
I still can't believe Ron Paul is associated with the Republican party after the current fisco. Hopefully he will change his mind and become an independent.
GoRon
Member
He has more influence now (little as it is) than he did as a libertarian or than he would have as an independent.
cbsbyte
Member
To bad since I can not vote for a Republican, even if they are at odds with the current Adminstration. Since they will have to toe the party line at some point, and I rarely agree with the current GOP party line.
telomerase
Member
No one of good faith wants to be associated with either "major" party. But as long as there are straight-ticket voting and lazy people in TX, you won't see many independents elected.
Fleetwing1627
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 9
Didn't Ron Paul run in 2004 but withdraw from the race because he knew it would be a waste of money? Or perhaps that was 2000. He is a very intelligent man and knows that he can do more good in Congress and with his writing (he writes for lewrockwell.com fairly often).
- Status
