Gun laws: Is this consitutional?

My bad!
The first image should have looked like this...
 

Attachments

  • AK-47orCanon-A1a.jpg
    AK-47orCanon-A1a.jpg
    54.2 KB · Views: 15
Interesting. Is this more analogous to Raich (upholding federal prosecution of medical marijuana users even when in compliance with state law), or to Lopez (striking down gun free school zones act)?

I think this fact pattern is more analogous to the Raich case. You have a state law that contradicts federal law, and the argument that the product in question stays in the state and therefore is not subject to federal legislation (so no conflict between state and federal law after all). That's the essence of the argument the court rejected in Raich. So no, it won't fly.
 
parky76 said:
i am confident the SCOTUS will find that when it comes to firearms, Federal law always trumps State law.
Click to expand...

When it comes to everything, Federal law always trumps state law.

It is always possible that the Supreme Court will rule that the applicable federal statutes are unconstitutional, but no state law can override a federal law. Arizona can't declare anything exempt from federal control.
 
Last edited:
Polaris said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but all those weapons are "banned" only to those who don't put forth the effort to obtain the proper licensing, pay the proper taxes and fees, and get the signature of approval from the local sheriff.
Click to expand...

You are not wrong. but as you implied, the sheriff can impose a de facto ban on title 2 weapons in their jurisdiction just by withholding his or her signature. Using a trust or Corp. to own the firearm is an easy way around the sig, but then the gun is not personally owned.

Ranb
 
KingMerv00 said:
Bob Blaylock said:
KingMerv00 said:
Bob Blaylock said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that?
Click to expand...
Everytime I hear this used as a complete argument, I die a little inside.
Click to expand...
Where does it say that in the Constitution?

And how many times do I have to use this argument to kill you completely?
Click to expand...
Do you know why relying solely on the text of the constitution is a bad idea?
Click to expand...


Where does it say THAT in the Constitution? (Are you dead yet?)
 
Last edited:
parky76 said:
i am confident the SCOTUS will find that when it comes to firearms, Federal law always trumps State law.

State law can only ADD to Federal law...it cannot subtract from it.

if Congress can order ALL able-bodied white men between the ages of 18-45 to buy a gun, than the Federal govt. can therefore regulate gun ownership/manufacture/sale within individual states.
Click to expand...


The highest body of federal law is the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about firearms? Hint: See the Second Amendment.

Really, the whole fault with both this Arizona law, and a similar one in Montana, is that both are unnecessary. The federal government does not have the authority to restrict the rights of American citizens to own and bear arms, period. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter.

Every law that is passed restricting this right is done in open, blatant defiance of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The highest body of federal law is the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about firearms? Hint: See the Second Amendment.

Really, the whole fault with both this Arizona law, and a similar one in Montana, is that both are unnecessary. The federal government does not have the authority to restrict the rights of American citizens to own and bear arms, period. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter.

Every law that is passed restricting this right is done in open, blatant defiance of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.
Click to expand...


*Somehow manages to die even more.*
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The highest body of federal law is the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about firearms? Hint: See the Second Amendment.

Really, the whole fault with both this Arizona law, and a similar one in Montana, is that both are unnecessary. The federal government does not have the authority to restrict the rights of American citizens to own and bear arms, period. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter.

Every law that is passed restricting this right is done in open, blatant defiance of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.
Click to expand...

The Federal Government basically has the right to do whatever it wants. It's called the Commerce Clause.:)

I had to write an opinion on D.C. v. Heller before the actual decision came out in law school. I said the Second Amendment did provide a private right for individual's to bear arms, but I certainly was not confident in that conclusion after reading all the briefs. I'm still kind of 50/50 on the whole thing to be honest. The language and background of the Second Amendment is much trickier than people think, and then every special interest in the world wants to reshape history to suit their goals as well in relation to the amendment's actual meaning.

Bob, have you read the Heller opinion?
 
HumanityBlues said:
The Federal Government basically has the right to do whatever it wants. It's called the Commerce Clause.:)

I had to write an opinion on D.C. v. Heller before the actual decision came out in law school. I said the Second Amendment did provide a private right for individual's to bear arms, but I certainly was not confident in that conclusion after reading all the briefs. I'm still kind of 50/50 on the whole thing to be honest. The language and background of the Second Amendment is much trickier than people think, and then every special interest in the world wants to reshape history to suit their goals as well in relation to the amendment's actual meaning.

Bob, have you read the Heller opinion?
Click to expand...

Haven't you been reading, he has read the second amendment and so doesn't need to read all that other stuff.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The highest body of federal law is the Constitution. What does the Constitution say about firearms? Hint: See the Second Amendment.

Really, the whole fault with both this Arizona law, and a similar one in Montana, is that both are unnecessary. The federal government does not have the authority to restrict the rights of American citizens to own and bear arms, period. That is what the Constitution has to say on the matter.

Every law that is passed restricting this right is done in open, blatant defiance of the Constitution, which is the highest law of the land.
Click to expand...

According to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom