Should we reappeal the FOPA?...

[Liberal Gun Nut]

Good poll there Tecumseh! Gun rights guys who are fighting against the national reciprocity bill should also be fighting to repeal the helpful provisions of the FOPA.

The one part of FOPA all of us would like to repeal would be 922(o) but that's not the point you're making.

 

[TexasRifleman]

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.

Drawn to its' logical conclusion that is true in my reading of the Constitution.

Finding someone willing to enforce it well.....

Look what it took to get the 15th amendment upheld, the Voting Rights Act and plenty of violence.

When they tax ammo so much we can't afford it is that the same as a poll tax? I would think so.
Took the 24th Amendment to fix that one.

No one is going to come to the cause of the Second in that fashion.

 

[billwiese]

Let's not worry about 922(o), the FOPA protections haven't really been tested/solidified either.

FOPA has the chance of keeping gunnies out of jail, in the sport, and voting.

Unfortunately FOPA protections have not been tested and people are being busted in NY/NJ for locked/unloaded/peaeable travels - or flying thru an airport.

Repealing of 922(o) stuff will be difficult and is best left as a byproduct/side effect of things flowing from cases like Parker. We saw how dangerous Silviera was - a bunch of drunken soccer playing lawyers drafted a poor case in one weekend, set things backwards and almost led to total disaster. Wiser heads want to let the 'evil guns' stay in the background and let court cases dealing with 'friendly guns' cover them.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[Sam Adams]

No, with explanation.

Keep FOPA as a whole, and work to repeal the one onerous/unconstitutional clause.

FOPA is (other than 922(o)) perfectly fine from a constitutional perspective - it forbids the states from interfering in the commerce of the nation by setting up nationally-consistent rules for transporting weapons and ammo. It eliminated the ammo purchase registration requirements of the '68 GCA (hawk, spit), and cut back on the ATF's power a bit (not enough, but anything is better than what existed before).

Only 922(o) needs to go, and the Parker case may take care of that (if the Pubbies don't manage to get the DC gun ban legislatively repealed).

 

[cuervo]

To me, FOPA is a good example of why not to pursue the federal CCW bill.

For all its good intent, FOPA wiped out any chance I'll ever have of owning a select-fire rifle. However it was slipped in, the fact is, it was slipped in and has been around for 20 years and has a next-to-nothing chance of going away. This is on top of the fact that the 1934 law is also unconstitutional, but has a next-to-nothing chance of going away, too. Add to that the 1968 law and all the other 20,000 laws out there.

If the national reciprocity continues to go through, what might be inserted into that and passed before it is caught? What deals will have to be made? Why do you have to wear a seat belt in every state? Not because the states mandated it, but because the federal government threatened to withold money from them if they didn't comply. Anytime a new federal regulation is involved, the people lose.

The best federal law is no federal law if the states are able to work things out. With CCW, I think this is happening. More states are passing CCW laws and more are accepting other states' CCWs in reciprocity deals. This was one of the reasons why the Constitution was, and should remain, a minimalist document. Good laws would be copied from state to state and bad laws would never go outside of a given state.

I would consider FOPA, except for Rangel's amendment, to be within the framework of the constitution because it does address interstate transportation. However, I also think that all federal and state guns laws should be abolished as unconstitutional, so FOPA shouldn't need to exist. I also feel that driver's licenses are unconstitutional, since cars are the equivalent of the FF's horses and that the people should be secure in their property while traveling. States recognize each other's driver's licenses because it makes good sense to, much as they should recognize each other's CCWs.

There may be some logic errors in there someplace, but the best I can express it is: FOPA is a constitutional response to unconstitutional laws. I don't think that the National Reciprocity Bill meets this concept.

 

[Gray Peterson]

We saw how dangerous Silviera was - a bunch of drunken soccer playing lawyers drafted a poor case in one weekend, set things backwards and almost led to total disaster.

I would be careful about making statements like that, especially about lawyers, accusing them of being "drunken". People have been sued for libel for much less.....

 

[Damien45]

As near as I can tell, FOPA, is an honest attempt from "Dad" to correct the misdoings of his "Sons". It is a pro-gun law that is not being upheld by certain states.

As for the "Federal CCW" bill, too many people assume the bill is a Federal CCW. It isn't. It in no way regulates a single point CCW, which would be a Federal CCW. It does give those that a state has issued a CCW to rights in states that refuse to. It, to some degree, attempts to give back rights that have been taken unconstitutionally.

 

[LawBot5000]

I'd just like to remind everyone that this is what happens when non-lawyers have a legal debate. About 3/4 of the posters in this thread dont seem to understand that you can repeal parts of an act as easily as the whole thing. It is only a presidential veto that kills the entire thing.

The talk about what violates or doesnt violate the constitution would be funny if it wasnt so obviously misinformed. I really wish people wouldnt create threads when drunk, high or sleep deprived. It isnt called the high road because of what everyone is smoking.

In general, the hour you spend doing a little research before opening your yap saves hundreds of others the trouble of fixing the damage your misstatements cause.

 

[Autolycus]

Well Lawbot 5000 insinuating that posters here are high is also not high road. So please dont get this thread closed. If you want to be smug then keep it to yourself please.

As for the rest please explain how the federal government overriding the laws of states regarding transportation of firearms according to the standards of the posters here.

But please explain them for us. I mean your so informed lets hear your opinion instead of attacking everyone elses.

 

[Soybomb]

I honestly don't know how I feel about it yet. FOPA does have provisions that I like, the proposed nation ccw of course would be nice since I'm an illinois resident. I don't feel like I've read enough yet to fully understand if the bill of rights is to provide protection from the federal government, or it and all governments under it. Right now I'm inclined to believe the original intent was to provide protection only from the federal government. Of course now the 14th amendment muddies it up even more....

In the long run, I just don't know. I'm a big states rights support and like the idea of keeping government smaller and closer to home. I'm inclined to say that neither one would really fit into the founders ideas of states rights and that even if they serve our interests, maybe they aren't really right. But then it comes back down to intent versus the way things are today and... In short for once I don't have an opinion.

 

[Autolycus]

Soybomb what about when the states violate our rights?

 

[shield20]

I think its rather obvious that Rights enumerated in the Constitution (and some that are not) are absolute, and can not be infringed by ANY body, govt, etc. Mostly, these rights are considered unalienable - they can not be given up even if we wanted them to be...how could a State restrict them?

Madison himself stated this:

Supposing a bill of rights to be proper ... I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided.

In other words, he HAD NO DOUBT that the rights he authored were absolute - and not to be overruled at any time.


These guys were NOT idiots - "Supreme Law of the Land, any State law, constitution notwithstanding..." preceeded the BOR, which also became part of the Constitution - they knew EXACTLY how the Rights would be guarded, or at least expected them to be.

They made sure too, that WE would be the ones to protect them:

Militia Act of 1792

That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

 

[LawBot5000]

Whether through an originalist reading of "privileges and immunities" or through modern "substantive due process" doctrine, it is clear that, regardless of the wishes of the States in which we reside, all US citizens retain the fundamental rights guaranteed to us by the constitution. Both clauses are in section 1 of the 14th amendment. And thanks to section 5 of the 14th amendment, congress has the power to pass laws protecting those rights from state usurpation.

FOPA's transport rules are pretty clearly within the "necessary and proper" sphere. Congress is addressing a tendency of certain states to harass gun owners transporting firearms through their jurisdiction by passing a law prohibiting it. Since this harassment clearly offends the right to keep and bear arms, congress is within its right to pass a law that stops it.

Since Congress is exercising an enumerated right, how can the states properly be said to have any right to resist their will? The constitution says that the constitution and the laws made under its authority are the supreme law of the land.

There really is no such thing as "state's rights" beyond the general principle (IMO) that enumerated powers should be construed narrowly rather than as plenary powers. Unfortunately for you, even the most narrow and tortured reading of the 14th amendment clearly grants congress the power it is exercising in FOPA.