Another state's governor just signed a "firearms freedom act" into law today (ut). Since these acts all do not cover machine guns, I wonder if anyone in montana or Tennessee has built an SBR/sbs, stamped "made in ___" on it and not given the feds their royalty.
anyone build an SBR/SBS in a "firearms freedom act" state?
- Thread starter 35wailen
- Start date
- Status
No one is going to answer this question on the internet.
kingpin008
Member
Agree with Hso. State law or not, you're asking people to openly admit violating a Federal law which carries some serious penalties. We're not all rocket scientists, but I don't think any of us are quite that dumb.
CoRoMo
Member
Or at least, no one should.
The state will challenge the ATF in fed court.
CoRoMo
Member
Right, and it is a message sent from, and a stand taken by the people, through state legislation, to the feds.
deadin
Member
Anybody volunteering to be the test case??
Translation: we're depending on corrupt FEDERAL courts to decide to be nice and give us back our 2nd and 10th amendments as the result of a Montana lawsuit that will easily be forgotten? We all know where this is headed.
I'm just saying that the only road to success is for dozens of citizens in every one of these states to force the feds to violate the constitution again and come after them and attempt to invalidate a completely legal and constitutional state law.
Begging tyrants to be nice, in their own federal court never works.
Some states have been pushing something similar, but with marijuana. They're basically saying the same thing: if it's grown, sold, and consumed within the state and never crosses state lines then the Feds have no say. So this Constitutional issue isn't just being pushed by gun hobbyists.
I do hope to see both succeed. I don't expect either to be quick or easy.
I do hope to see both succeed. I don't expect either to be quick or easy.
And herein lies the problem with incorporation. If the 2A is incorporated then the feds have a say. If not then the states rights rule.
Incorporation means your carry permit is good even in CA eventually. States rights means never.
Double edged sword.
Incorporation means your carry permit is good even in CA eventually. States rights means never.
Double edged sword.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Are you not paying close attention to RKBA related Federal District and Supreme Court cases lately?
We're hitting some real home runs these days. The decisions that have been handed down recently would have been UNTHINKABLE 10 (probably even 5) years ago.
We've got some SHARP folks working for us and making great progress. "Corrupt Federal Courts?" Sheesh, talk about overblown and shrill hyperbole. I don't mean to be rude about it, but man ... look around ... wake up and realize that we're finally on the winning side!
The cry "to arms -- resist the tyrants" was more appropriate a decade or two ago than it is now.
-Sam
Incorporation doesn't limit states rights to regulate guns. Incorporation will only be used to throw out the worst bans such as Chicago's. These firearm freedom acts are really a 10th amendment issue and an attempt to stop the blatant abuse of the interstate commerce clause.
These "home runs" (I would say Heller is the only "home run") is a ruling that took out the worst violation in the nation (i.e. D.C.'s ban). Yes, the federal judiciary is extremely corrupt because it avoided doing the right thing for many many decades and it has made rulings AFTER HELLER, which protect various gun bans. And even AFTER the Heller "home run," all the unconstitutional federal gun control is still in tact. I want to be optimistic too, but I'm not going to pretend that we're hitting home runs at will here.
Not exactly. I'm no Constitutional historian or lawyer, but basically the 2A incorporation is some suing the state saying that they are depriving him of his Constitutional rights. It's really the same principle that killed Jim Crowe at the state level.
This firearms freedom act is something else entirely. The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. That is, the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate intrastate commerce of any product, be that guns, pot, whatever. If the firearm freedoms act or the pot thing succeeds, then they both succeed. Of course, that only keeps the federal government from banning the commerce in said product intrastate. Each state can make their own laws governing said product, as long as they don't violate your Constitutional rights in so doing. Hence, they still can't ban handguns (that is if Chicago loses their case).
I see both cases as good because if both go the right way then it means more freedom all around. The states are free to allow any product they want inside their own borders, but they aren't free to deprive their own citizens of rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.
hirundo82
Member
The marijuana issue already had its day at SCOTUS in Gonzales v. Raich, and lost. It was a bad decision, saying that the federal government can regulate something based on the most tenuous connection to interstate commerce, but it it the law of the land. Raich was the basis for the 9th Circuit reversing its original decision in US v. Stewart; they had previously overturned a conviction for possession of an unregistered machinegun on interstate commerce grounds.happygeek said:
These Firearm Freedom Acts have good intentions, but at this point I'm afraid it is going to take either a constitutional amendment or a major change in the composition of SCOTUS to rein in the federal government's trampling of states' rights.
jfh
Member.
You know, the issues in this discussion probably are better discussed
in legal. IANAL, but I know a bit about the issues of getting the full benefits of Heller in our judicial system. Simply put, it will take awhile to run the trials up against precedent.
What was so important about Heller was not only that it struck down DC's ban, it also affirmed the issues of keep and bear arms as an individual right. That had not been done before, really--so the "militia' promoters had had a field day since 1934, and certainly since 1968.
So, I suggest we have a moderator move this to legal. There's a few people who post there that should be able to comment well for us.
Jim H.
in legal. IANAL, but I know a bit about the issues of getting the full benefits of Heller in our judicial system. Simply put, it will take awhile to run the trials up against precedent.
What was so important about Heller was not only that it struck down DC's ban, it also affirmed the issues of keep and bear arms as an individual right. That had not been done before, really--so the "militia' promoters had had a field day since 1934, and certainly since 1968.
So, I suggest we have a moderator move this to legal. There's a few people who post there that should be able to comment well for us.
Jim H.
Hence 35wailen's comment on corrupt federal courts. It would seem to be a simple fact that governments and government agencies never willingly give up their power once they manage to acquire it. Once the federal government managed to weasel its way into dictating commerce intrastate as well as interstate, they'll fight tooth and nail to maintain that precedent in defiance of the Constitution.
I'd imagine the DEA and BATFE are and will do everything they can to hold onto their power as well. There's not much worse than a government agency that's trying to justify its own existence.
I think I read somewhere that Montana was suing the feds to rule on their law, and the feds were trying to get it dismissed. I think it was another post on this forum, but can't recall. I can remember wondering if the feds run from the suit do they lose the right to then prosecute in those circumstances?
Interesting legal question if you have that type of brain.
Interesting legal question if you have that type of brain.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked