Search results for query: *

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Freedmen's Bureau Bill said that "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms, are [not to be] refused or denied ... on account of race"

That's odd ... two weeks ago my UPS driver checked with his boss and said they could not ship ammo, I thought they were mistaken and so I called the 800 number but they also said I could not ship ammo unless I had hazmat training ... just now I called again and was told that I can ship ammo UPS...

I assume a place that sells ammo has hazmat training and so UPS will ship ammo for them. If anyone here calls the UPS hazardous material support center at 800-554-9964 and is told that UPS ships ammo for individuals without hazmat training then I'd like to see that posted here. I was told...

A week or two ago I asked the UPS driver about shipping ammo ... he checked and found out that UPS does not ship ammo ... I thought he was wrong and called their hazardous material support center at 800-554-9964 ... they confirmed that UPS does not ship ammo ... I contacted FedEx and they said...

If this is an assertion that a person who tries to influence another State's legislation is violating the Tenth Amendment, as if he could be charged and convicted of such a thing, then I disagree ... but if it an assertion that such an act would be antithetical to Tenth Amendment federalism...

It makes sense to me ... as an analogy, if Canada was considering a gun law, I would not contact the Canadian officials to express my opinion, because I am not a citizen of Canada ... likewise, if Colorado was considering a gun law, I would not weigh in, because I am not a citizen of Colorado...

First off, the Second Amendment was intended to mean that the RKBA shall not be infringed by Congress, so historically a state/county/city was not limited by the Second Amendment. Lately the courts are construing the 14th Amendment so as to limit state/county/city gun control powers, but they...

No. This is an extreme libertarian view of the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment limits only the federal government. If you would like to learn more about the Ninth Amendment, Professor Kurt Lash wrote a paper which contrasts the libertarian and federalist views of the amendment. Or, you...

I think that a simple explanation would be that Heller regarded whether the 2nd Amendment only protects the RKBA of a select group such as people in the National Guard (a "collective right"), or if it protects the RKBA of the general population (an "individual right"). And McDonald regarded...

It seems well written and may well provide a needed reference. In my mind, it raises some question about the general nature of incorporation ... could it be that only the fundamental aspects of the RKBA, those which require strict scrutiny, are incorporated ... while other aspects of the...

I am a 54 year old Virginian and I have never been fingerprinted. When I was growing up being fingerprinted was associated with being a criminal. Maybe I'm old and set in my ways, but being fingerprinted for a CCW permit doesn't seem right to me. I've noticed some stores now want your thumbprint...

Earlier versions of HR 822 referred to the 2nd and 14th Amendments, but it looks to me like what passed the House makes no such justification, it only says that the law applies to guns that have "been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce".

The commerce clause - HR 822 applies to handguns that have "been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce".

Incorporation seems to leave some aspects of gun control, such as CCW, as intrastate affairs. And HR822 recognizes that States don't have to allow CCW. If disallowing CCW is within the rights of the States, then it seems to me that deciding which CCW permits to recognize is also within their...

I imagine that these new federal requirements would have to be met by some given date, giving the states a chance to comply.

No, I absolutely do not agree that a citizen of one State should have the same rights as a citizen of another State. I find such a political view to be radical and antithetical to our federal system. If we look at the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, including the preceding...

The 14th Amendment took effect 143 years ago, and it has never regarded concealed carry before, so it seems like a stretch to me. And the bill respects that States can deny concealed carry, so how can it at the same time claim that it's a right protected by the 14th Amendment? It seems to...

Isn't it new ground for "our side"? I think the RKBA crowd has previously been against this abuse of the commerce clause. And it's new ground to declare that the commerce clause creates federal jurisdiction over CCW. I am not aware that the SCOTUS has said that the interstate commerce power...

"(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State ... harms interstate commerce." And it also says that CCW reduces crime, which appears to mean that it would be for the "general welfare". It appears to me that the...

In my view, the primary thing wrong with it is that it declares that the interstate commerce power creates federal jurisdiction over CCW ... I think it's given that the federal government will, in time, use their jurisdiction over CCW to our detriment ... and besides, I think it's intellectually...