Should we reappeal the FOPA?...

[Autolycus]

Should we reappeal the Firearms Owners Protection Act ,commonly called the FOPA? It is unconstitutional and violates the Constitution.

Should state and local governments should be allowed to arrest anyone with a gun who is traveling through their state? Should the Utah man who was legally transporting, according to FOPA, a firearm be in jail?

Should you legally be able to travel with a firearm dissambled through Illinois even though you do not have an FOID card? Or through Michigan with its safety inspections? Have your pistols been inspected by Michigan LEOs even though you live in Florida or Wyoming?

Since it is unconstitutional I just want to see how many of us here would vote to reappeal it. Then we can all write a few letters asking for Congress to make this bill "Null and Void".

A little information about the FOPA can be found here.

 

[LawBot5000]

I hate these threads.

If you mean to say "lets repeal 18 USC 922(o)" then the answer is obviously "yes."

If you mean "lets roll all federal gun control laws back to 1985" then the answer is "hell no."

FOPA was an act of congress that basically did 3 separate things:
-changed gun laws nationwide for the better, getting rid of paperwork and licensing for ammunition sales and a few other things
-changed the ATF for the better, greatly curtailing their authoritay
-added 18 USC 922(o)

Note that 99 percent of FOPA was good stuff.

 

[Autolycus]

But nonetheless it was unconstitutional to override states rights.

 

[LawBot5000]

States have no rights or powers here. RKBA is a fundamental right protected by the 2nd amendment and applied to the states by the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment also gives congress the authority to make laws to protect those rights from state usurpation.

If you dont like this, go back in time and win the civil war.

 

[TexasRifleman]

But nonetheless it was unconstitutional to override states rights.

No it's not. The Constitution says that everything not specifically mentioned goes to the states.

Go read #10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Second is clearly delegated, the State has no say.

So, in fact, if the Second is deemed to be an individual right then there can be NO state firearm laws AT ALL.

Remember this is a fundamental right we're talking about here, a pre-existing right, not one GIVEN by the Constitution.
Neither the states nor the Federal government grant us that right, we have always had it.

Having states recognize each others paperwork is in Article IV Section I.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

That covers things THAT ARE NOT RIGHTS, like drivers license. Driving is not a right. If the 28th Amendment were to say "The right of persons to carpool shall not be infringed" then state drivers license would be out, but it does not say that.

So in reality, FOPA should not exist at all, but only because the STATES violate our Second Amendment rights not because FOPA is flawed.

Hence the potential of the Parker case.

It is conceivable, though certainly not likely, that we could have a situation not unlike Selma Alabama right in the middle of downtown Chicago, where Federal forces are called in to enforce the Peoples right to own arms. I'm not that optimistic but if you run it to it's most extreme end, that would be legal and proper to do; Federal government protecting rights against a State that is trying to usurp those rights. If it were to occur I'd fly direct to New York to watch folks line up to buy ARs

 

[El Tejon]

"Reappeal"? There was a decision that I missed?!?!

There was a Court of Appeals decision? Are you asking if we reappeal for en banc or to the Supreme Court? Anyone have a link to the decision?

 

[TexasRifleman]

"Reappeal"? There was a decision that I missed?!?!

He means repeal. Simple spelling issue

 

[El Tejon]

Warning to kids, do not check voice mail and read THR.

 

[Autolycus]

Yes my spelling was bad. Going on almost 36 hours of no sleep. And my eyes did not catch it.

But never the less I am just frustrated. Let me pull up the link that is frustrating me and caused me to start this little poll.

 

[Autolycus]

Here is the link to the discussion that is frustrating me...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=264433

 

[TexasRifleman]

Here is the link to the discussion that is frustrating me...

Yeah I figured that was it, and I understand your position.

The problem some of us have is that yes, it's a compromise and on the surface seems like a good idea. And it may come to that.

But now, with Parker possibly looming out there, this National Reciprocity seems wrong on the face.

If you accept that the Second is a pre-existing right and the states cannot control it, then by introducing a National Reciprocity you have the Federal government ceding a right to the states that they should not be able to cede.
You have the Fed saying, in effect, we recognize your right as a state to oversee the administering of the Second Amendment as you see fit by giving out concealed permits. The state should not have that ability in the first place.

If Parker were to go completely our direction (which I still question somewhat) we would potentially have grounds to achieve the same results on a state level, by getting the CHL/CCW permit process tossed.

In the meantime legislation continues that almost goes against what Parker says.

It's a frustrating time but potentially the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Gray Peterson]

This thread needs to be scrapped

The question being asked was incorrect. The real question that need to asked is: Do you want to repeal the interstate transport protection in FOPA?

The reason the question is seriously being asked is to call to the carpet anyone who thinks the HR861/S388 is unconstitutional.

 

[30 cal slob]

charlie rangel's little poison pill should be repealed.

 

[Autolycus]

What Lonnie Wilson said is pretty much what I was getting at. I am going on no sleep and trying to get back into a normal sleeping pattern. But essentially I think that if they want to be protected from harassment and arrest while transporting their guns under the FOPA they should support National Reciprocity.

 

[hugh damright]

The reason the question is seriously being asked is to call to the carpet anyone who thinks the HR861/S388 is unconstitutional.

I think that HR861/S388 are unconstitutional, and I don't see any connection with interstate transportation protection in FOPA. One thing has nothing to do with the other. As was mentioned in the other thread, if some States didn't allow weapons to be transported through them it would impact other States and the Union. But if some States don't allow CCW, it doesn't impact other States or the Union. I think it is silly to keep going on and on asserting that if a person thinks that HR861/S388 are unconstitutional then he must also think that the interstate transportation protection in FOPA is unconstitutional. Give it up.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The reason the question is seriously being asked is to call to the carpet anyone who thinks the HR861/S388 is unconstitutional.

The Constitutional arguments are made above. I notice no one wants to debate them. Why is that?

 

[Lupinus]

How is it unconstitutional? The right to keep and bare arms is a federaly protected natural right, the .gov therefor has the right to tell states they can not infridnge upon it.

 

[El Tejon]

hugh, as Lup said, if some states do not allow CCW then that is a violation of the 14th Amendment and it is the feds business.

30 cal snob, what is Rangel's poison pill?

 

[hugh damright]

if some states do not allow CCW then that is a violation of the 14th Amendment and it is the feds business.

The 14th has been around for quite some time, and State CCW laws have never violated the 14th before. The Second Amendment hasn't even been incorporated under the 14th, and if it ever is, I don't know that it would extend to CCW. Your extremist 14th "Amendment" view seems removed from reality.

 

[30 cal slob]

ban on machine guns made after may 1986 for individual transfer

 

[Deavis]

State CCW laws have never violated the 14th before.

Given that Constitutions of many States have specifically mentioned the carrying of concealed weapons as something not protected, I'm not sure how you would apply the 14th to CCW laws. Simply put, carrying a concealed weapon has not, IIRC, ever been judged bearing arms by a court. Bearing, as taken by the courts, has always meant open carrying. I don't have my USSC Gun Case book here but I remember reading that in one of the blurbs somewhere. Of course, baring arms is still up for grabs I hear

 

[hugh damright]

How is it unconstitutional? The right to keep and bare arms is a federally protected natural right, the .gov therefor has the right to tell states they can not infringe upon it.

I'm curious how you believe that the US came to be the protector of our natural rights? I believe that our natural rights are beyond the reach of a federal government. I think that is what the SCOTUS said when they checked the 14th "Amendment" with their "Incorporation Doctrine". The SCOTUS has always maintained that the only federal protection of our individual RKBA is as it relates to militia.

I believe that it is unconstitutional in many ways ... I do not believe that the US is empowered to force CCW on States ... and this idea of rights following us from State to State, so that you can go to a State that doesn't allow CCW but be above their law, is so childish and antithetical to the Constitution that I can hardly lower myself enough to discuss the subject.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I do not believe that the US is empowered to force CCW on States ... and this idea of rights following us from State to State, so that you can go to a State that doesn't allow CCW but be above their law, is so childish and antithetical to the Constitution that I can hardly lower myself enough to discuss the subject.

I do not believe that the US is empowered to force Civil Rights on states...
and this idea of rights following us from State to State, so that you can go to a
State that doesn't allow Blacks to drink from public water fountains but be above their law and do it anyway, is so childish and antithetical to the Constitution that I can hardly lower myself enough to discuss the subject.

 

[woerm]

no, repeal is not the answer

we need to remove title 18 sect 922(o) that bans civilian purchase/mfg of new production select fire weapons.

it 922(o) violates the equal protection clause (Police, .mil etc now 'security contractors' are more equal pigs?)

and the second ammendment, there are iirc 4 seperate circuit courts that have at various point thrown out cases under 922(o) on those and other grounds.


r

 

[shield20]

Lets get some more constitutional insight:

Art 1 Sect 8
COngress has the power:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof

Art IV
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 2: a well-regulated Militia....,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Amendment 10:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


So...
1) the Congress has NO power to regulate arms; it is not given to them by the Constitution.
2) the Congress has the power to provide for arming the Miltias, which they 1st did in 1792, by saying the people should arm themselves; they do NOT have the power to restrict arms, and even if they did, this was overrode by the 2nd (which changed the Constitution)
3) state commerce, tax powers or any other federal attempt to the control arms of the people is UNconstitutional because these original powers were also overriden by the 2nd. Only a NEW amendment could override the 2nd.
4) The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people shall not be infringed" - period.
5) the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land - period.
6) The 2nd amendment prohibits the States from infringing on the right to bear arms, because IT is part of the Supreme law of the Land, NOTHIING in the State laws/const. withstanding! i.e. No matter what, the right shall not be infringed.
7) the 10th gives NO power to the states with regards to the 2nd, because the 2nd says this right shall not be infringed, and it is supreme - i.e. as part of the Constitution, IT prohibits the states from having this power also, as declared in amend. 10. The Feds don't have the power, the States don't have the power, and since THE PEOPLE have the Right, so any associated power is delegated to them alone.


All FURTHER protected by:

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


And FURTHER backed up by the Warner Act of 2007, saying the Guard can be called forth to...

B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or..


There is NO DOUBT the right to bear arms is named and secured, and VERY specifically, in the Constitution; any state refusing to protect that right is subject to facing the National Guard.