• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gun laws: Is this consitutional?

the fed. gov. has the right to regulate guns manufactured in Montana and only sold in Montana.
 
Have not been able to find out much about the ATF response to the Arizona law, but the ATF does not have a high opinion on the Montana law though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act There is supposed to be an open letter from the BATFE to MT FFL’s, but I can not find it anymore. It says in part;

because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.
Click to expand...

The Federal government uses the NFA of 1934 and other laws as a ban on some firearms which clearly is in opposition to the 2nd amendment.

Ranb
 
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.

America is ONE nation, indivisible. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
To me, this likely won't fly for many reasons.

They are clearly trying to use a technicality to get around the use of the commerce clause to regulate firearms. In order to pull this off, I imaging the feds will have them prove that the company does 0 interstate commerce. Not only would they have to prove that the don't sell the guns outside of AZ, but they would have to prove they don't purchase any parts, supplies or services from outside AZ (this means that they can't have Windows or any MS products on thier computers because they are produced in WA)

If AZ wants to use petty technicalities to create a loophole, then should expect the feds to use equally petty technicalities to close it.
 
The NFA act of '34 was appealed to the SCOTUS. Seems the limts set by the act is "what a single soldier uses in combat". Meaning crew served weapons are out. Cannons and heavy machine guns.

But "Miller vs the gov" argued that since sawed off shotguns were used in the trenches in WWI, they ought to be legal. Appeal made it all the way to the Supremes, but nobody showed up to argue the defendants side. So we lost by default.
 
casebro said:
The NFA act of '34 was appealed to the SCOTUS. Seems the limts set by the act is "what a single soldier uses in combat". Meaning crew served weapons are out. Cannons and heavy machine guns.

But "Miller vs the gov" argued that since sawed off shotguns were used in the trenches in WWI, they ought to be legal. Appeal made it all the way to the Supremes, but nobody showed up to argue the defendants side. So we lost by default.
Click to expand...

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. You just can't go down to Murray's Guns and Ammo and buy an M2 HMG, but if you have the will (and the huge chunk of change), the only thing between you and that fine piece of American engineering are the local by-laws and possibly a sheriff who doesn't like you.
 
U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
Got this from the rightwingnuts I get mail from..
.
"On Wednesday Obama Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms.

The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened. Obama can appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation (in the United States) that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws. Does that mean Obama is telling the truth? What it means is that there will be no publicized gun control debates in the media or votes in Congress. We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment."
.
The actual article is a bit more rational, but still..
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE59E0Q920091015
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom