Idaho following Montana's and Tennessee's footsteps
- Thread starter IdahoLT1
- Start date
- Status
Actually Idaho has one fairly close to where I live. Tactical Innovations is in Bonners Fairy in the Very N Idaho. And I know there is at least 2 more.
N. Idaho has done a decent job in the last ten years to dump the aryan nations nut jobs. They have very little following compared to what they had awhile back. Richard Butler the deceased leader even got SMASHED in a run for mayor, 2,000 to 50 loss.
Plus Idaho has the #1 emerald production in the country.
N. Idaho has done a decent job in the last ten years to dump the aryan nations nut jobs. They have very little following compared to what they had awhile back. Richard Butler the deceased leader even got SMASHED in a run for mayor, 2,000 to 50 loss.
Plus Idaho has the #1 emerald production in the country.
IdahoLT1
Member
Skillet said:
Tactical Solutions in Boise is a federally licensed manufacturer. Im not aware of any guns they make suppressors.
Cheytac is in Arco
There's Rogue Rifle Company inc in Lewiston
The Gun Runner is a NFA dealer/manufacturer in Moscow
Advanced Precision in Meridian went from making semi conductors to making shotguns
John Bollinger makes custom rifles in Pocatello
Speer and CCI ammo/primers are manufactured in Lewiston. I think their corporate office is there as well.
Nightforce optics is in Orofino
Gemtech in Boise makes suppressors
bdgackle
Member
I'd be interested in seeing this go a step further. Who cares where the gun was made? Once it has been purchased and possessed by the end consumer, it has passed OUT of interstate commerce. I think an argument could be made that regulations on mere possession have nothing whatsoever to do with interstate commerce. Nor for that matter do transactions between dealers and customers I the same state.
I would think that logic would dictate that Federal power ends at regulating transactions that are actually, you know, INTERstate. But then I suppose we don't assign the title "your honor" based on demonstrated powers of reason and logic.
I would think that logic would dictate that Federal power ends at regulating transactions that are actually, you know, INTERstate. But then I suppose we don't assign the title "your honor" based on demonstrated powers of reason and logic.
mljdeckard
Member
It's looking like Gov. Herbert is going to veto Utah's.
IdahoLT1
Member
The bill passed the House 52-17. Although some of the comments are anti-gun, some posters bring up good points on Federal regulation among commerce within the State.
WWW.idahostatesman.com/2010/03/09/1...&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
There's more to the article that I didn't post, if you're interested.
WWW.idahostatesman.com/2010/03/09/1...&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
Idaho Statesman said:
There's more to the article that I didn't post, if you're interested.
TexasBill
Member
Texas isn't doing anything because the Legislature isn't in session. We'll have to wait until 2011. However, unless we get a miracle on the order of the parting of the Red Sea, we're going to wind up with another term of Rick Perry. Among his few redeeming values is the fact he is a complete wh*re for anything remotely conservative so if we can get similar legislation (and maybe even OC?) started, there's a real good chance it could become law.
BTW: A big +1 to mljdeckard's comments about the realities of party politics. FWIW. Zell Miller was a Democrat when he started the CCW ball rolling some years ago.
And will Congress swing far to the right? Probably not, though it's normal for the opposition party to pick up some seats in the midterm elections. Neither party has exactly draped themselves in glory during the Obama Administration. Funny thing is, Obama has done exactly what he said he was going to do. But it's not up to him to pass legislation. Yet everyone blames him instead of the 500-some-odd bozos who couldn't seem to get anything of substance done one way or the other.
BTW: A big +1 to mljdeckard's comments about the realities of party politics. FWIW. Zell Miller was a Democrat when he started the CCW ball rolling some years ago.
And will Congress swing far to the right? Probably not, though it's normal for the opposition party to pick up some seats in the midterm elections. Neither party has exactly draped themselves in glory during the Obama Administration. Funny thing is, Obama has done exactly what he said he was going to do. But it's not up to him to pass legislation. Yet everyone blames him instead of the 500-some-odd bozos who couldn't seem to get anything of substance done one way or the other.
mljdeckard
Member
Oh, and BTW, Gov Herbert signed ours. He had cited concerns about litigation costs, but the Attorney General assured him that if there are costs, they will be minimal and they have already been budgeted.
C-grunt
Member
Its on the books right now.
CoRoMo
Member
I don't think so. I know my state is too busy coming up with faster ways to go broke, to even think about such things.
THE DARK KNIGHT
Member
Do these bills actually do anything other than look good on paper / campaign re-election flyers?
Seems to me like it it still unwise to go make an in-state NFA item in Montana or wherever else they have these laws. Don't some of these states even say do not actually act as if this law exists?
It's gonna need a Supreme Court challenge to validate these laws. So let's hold off on the champagne for a while.
I would REALLY hate to be the guinea pig for this one.
And lol @ people thinking Republican means gun rights. I've got a list a mile long for you of Republicans that would love to see you stripped of everything except a $700 permit process, stored locked, child proof, micro stamped, single shot break action .22lr
Seems to me like it it still unwise to go make an in-state NFA item in Montana or wherever else they have these laws. Don't some of these states even say do not actually act as if this law exists?
It's gonna need a Supreme Court challenge to validate these laws. So let's hold off on the champagne for a while.
I would REALLY hate to be the guinea pig for this one.
And lol @ people thinking Republican means gun rights. I've got a list a mile long for you of Republicans that would love to see you stripped of everything except a $700 permit process, stored locked, child proof, micro stamped, single shot break action .22lr
The only problem with these laws is this: the FedGov doesn't have to initiate any court cases. It can ignore these laws indefinitely.
The only way to FORCE the case to the Supreme Court is for somebody (a firearms manufacturer, dealer, or buyer) to be arrested and convicted of a Federal felony, then appeal the case.
Anybody here want to volunteer to risk 10+ years in Club Fed, and either way, screw years of your life? You'd also best be financially independent, because you can pretty much kiss off having your gun business, getting a job, etc.
There are a few flaws in our legal system... The "standing" thing is one of them.
The only way to FORCE the case to the Supreme Court is for somebody (a firearms manufacturer, dealer, or buyer) to be arrested and convicted of a Federal felony, then appeal the case.
Anybody here want to volunteer to risk 10+ years in Club Fed, and either way, screw years of your life? You'd also best be financially independent, because you can pretty much kiss off having your gun business, getting a job, etc.
There are a few flaws in our legal system... The "standing" thing is one of them.
OK is trying to pass something along the lines of Idaho. It's even called the same thing - The OK firearms freedom act.
It's just so much hot air blown by another politician looking to pick up votes. The law is meaningless. Just as it is everywhere else. Ignoring the supremacy clause of the constitution and just arguing along the lines of the 10th will end up with good people going to jail. SCOTUS has been and will continue to be unwilling to rock the boat. Validating these firearms freedom acts based on the 10th would be a monumental - hell - an historical level of boat rocking the current set of knotheads sitting on the bench would just not do.
It's just so much hot air blown by another politician looking to pick up votes. The law is meaningless. Just as it is everywhere else. Ignoring the supremacy clause of the constitution and just arguing along the lines of the 10th will end up with good people going to jail. SCOTUS has been and will continue to be unwilling to rock the boat. Validating these firearms freedom acts based on the 10th would be a monumental - hell - an historical level of boat rocking the current set of knotheads sitting on the bench would just not do.
C-grunt
Member
Heres a link to Az version
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBil..._Number=HB2307
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2307h.pdf
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBil..._Number=HB2307
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2307h.pdf
There was a case in Ohio, late 40's decided by SCOTUS that illustrates wonderfully how twisted the court can actually be.
I don't remember the case name but it boiled down to this.
1. Farmer grew wheat.
2. Said farmer used wheat on his farm and said wheat never left farm
3. Farmer was a member of some organization that fell under fed regulation and was billed by same for something
4. farmer refused to pay based on grounds he didn't benefit from the service as his wheat was grown only for personal and farm use
5. org took farmer to court
6. case went to SCOTUS who decided that he had to pay based on the commerce clause.
7. SCOTUS argument: wheat could have been sold across state lines; by choosing not to sell his wheat the farmer was impacting interstate commerce therefore the commerce clause made it so that the farmer did fall under the regs and did have to pay the orgs fee.
WEIRD huh?
Someone will jump in with the exact case I'm sure. I believe it's been overturned since the original decision but kind'a reinstated by a follow on decision even weirder.
Which is why I don't think this is really a joke:
What's 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
A good start.
The "Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act (#2)" is waiting on our Governors signature also. This one is the stronger of the two WFFA Bills introduced.
I like this paragraph:
And this one. So Suppressors should be ok because they would fall under the "but not limited to" part.:
I like this paragraph:
And this one. So Suppressors should be ok because they would fall under the "but not limited to" part.:
armoredman
Member
Utah did sign theirs, I believe. AZ's version is out of the House and in the Senate.
I suggest you read a few of the key supreme court cases on the Commerce Clause. Basically there are three areas that congress can regulate under the CC:
1. Channels of commerce, roads railways, airways etc
2. Instrumentalities: trucks, planes, people, goods etc
3. things that have an "substantial effect on interstate commerce
The thing to know is that for number three it can be things that affect it in the the aggregate. That is to say that one person doing it might not have an effect but what if we imagine that everyone did it, then would it? If everyone bought in state suppressors would there be a substantial effect on interstate commerce? According to the courts precedent yes.
Further court can regulate purely intra state acitvities if doing so is necessary to regualte interstate commerce.
To give you an idea of where we are at the court has said that simply growing six marijuana plants and using that marijuana for personal consumption i.e. it was never bought or sold, it was never transported, it was never meant for any kind of market. Not withstanding all that, it still has a substantial effect on commerce.
The currect precendents of the court make it very clear that these laws don't pass constitutional muster. I don't like the way the supreme court interprets the CC I'm with Justice Thomas and would love to roll back the clock but we are 4 justices short of doing that.
THere are some ways to distinguish from Raich but I think it would take outright reversal of SCOTUS precedent for these laws to be upheld. Kennedy will not for it. Scalia might change his vote since he likes guns more than pot but who knows. Sotomayor? Any one want to guess whether her vote will be inline with Stevens or Thomas?
In sum these laws are a good statement and the more states that pass them the more chance they have. The court changed its CC interpretation to the broad view in the first place because of political winds. That said their future is not bright and anyone familar with CC jurisprudence knows it.
That's not quite right as I read Wickard it didn't even matter that his wheat could cross lines. Just him using it for personal use meant he didn't have to buy wheat from the larger wheat market, again taken in the agregate this has a substantial effect. If everyone grew their own and did have to buy wheat what would that do to the interstate market. Similarly if the wheat would have only been for a domestic market rather than personal use it would fall under the CC for the same reason. So its even worse than you thought. If it was just a matter of being able to cross state lines because wheat is fungible then we could have more hope for a suppressor marked UT only or MT only etc because they would not then be fungible in the same way. That is only one of the issues though. IF everyone buys an instate suppressor instead of out of state will that have a substantial effect on the market?
The case is the famous (infamous?) Wickard v Fillburn it was never overturned rather it was affirmed and arguably expanded in Raich (the above mentioned pot case).
Interestingly enough two of the cases that did narrow the Commerce clause related to guns. Lopez which dealt with the gun free school zone act of 1990 and a provision of the Brady Act. Lopez basically said you cannot ban possession alone of a gun in a school zone based on the commerce clause by playing "seven degrees" of commerce to make an attenuated link between possessing a gun and commerce. This basically said the commerce clause is not complete carte blanche but it left things very very broad. The Brady Act case said that you cannot pass a fed law that requires state officials to execute it. Neither of those limits matter for the bills being discussed in this thread other than they showed a willingness to limit.
Sadly they were followed by Raich were a woman had a CA legal marijuana prescription and six pot plants to grow it for personal use. The court held that growing medical marijuana in your home for your own use, had a substantial effect on commerce, or more accurately could if everyone was doing it. If you can regulate that you sure as heck can regulate suppressors made and sold instate only, sorry.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked