Who are you talking to?Why do you say it is violated? You have proof of that assertion?
Who are you talking to?Why do you say it is violated? You have proof of that assertion?
...I smell yet another misapplication of the “commerce clause”.
...If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty....
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....
Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....
......Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution...
I see. Yeah, I think his "thousands" number is probably wildly high. I do know for a fact that it is violated on occasion, having known several people, including two FFL's, who were under the same delusion as Boogaloo Bungalow and thought that there was some sort of exemption for family members.jski; looks like a few posts got in just before mine!
I agree. Unfortunately, our opinions don't matter and don't change the law.I smell yet another misapplication of the “commerce clause”.
Enlighten me! Are there thousands of prosecutions for this “crime” I’m unaware of?Well, of course. Up until yesterday, you were unaware of this law, so it would've been hard to be aware of prosecutions. Again, we're just telling you what the law is. Whether or not you violate the law is up to you.
I have no idea. Just thought it was a little funny for you to say you were unaware of prosecutions for violations of a law you didn't know existed. Obviously, if you were aware of prosecutions, you'd have been aware of the law and we wouldn't be having this conversation.Enlighten me! Are there thousands of prosecutions for this “crime” I’m unaware of?
Yes, indeed I was unaware of this law BUT I suspect if this law were being widely enforced with multiple prosecutions, I would have been aware of it.I have no idea. Just thought it was a little funny for you to say you were unaware of prosecutions for violations of a law you didn't know existed. Obviously, if you were aware of prosecutions, you'd have been aware of the law and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Absolutely true.I deal with unforgiving logic which seems to have little to do with the law.
Maybe, maybe not. I suspect that most of the time, when it is prosecuted, it's an add-on to other charges. Just a guess.Yes, indeed I was unaware of this law BUT I suspect if this law were being widely enforced with multiple prosecutions, I would have been aware of it.
BTW, I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer. I deal with unforgiving logic which seems to have little to do with the law.
Enlighten me! Are there thousands of prosecutions for this “crime” I’m unaware of?
Guys, one thing I wish to make clear, I greatly appreciate your all’s input and I certainly don’t want anyone to think I’m being dismissive of any of it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but all of this present thread is tied to GCA 68, and the creation of FFL, correct?It seems to be one of the lesser known nasty wrinkles in our assortment of gun laws.
Correct me if I am wrong, but all of this present thread is tied to GCA 68, and the creation of FFL, correct?
It’s pretty simple. He can fly with a gun or follow the federal rules for shipping it. ....
Thank you.of gun dealers and manufacturers goes back to the Federal Firearms Act of 1938
.... If my son were to lend me one of his guns for protection while I was traveling I would have no problem checking in at either airport with the gun properly locked per FHA requirements....
....There was no need for proof of who the gun belongs to because that’s not checked when flying. ....
At the risk of sounding impatient, what is so difficult about that?.If you and your son are residents of different States, both you and your son risk prosecution for violation of federal law on the interstate transfer of firearms....The issue is the transfer of possession (not ownership) of a gun from a resident of one State to a resident of another. As outlined in post 5, under federal law that must be done through an FFL..
At the risk of sounding impatient, what is so difficult about that?.