Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Elvis C,

 

Glock is here in Smyrna, Georgia. Hopefully this state will consider something like this in the future as well.

Edited by GeorgiaPD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I can't wait til October, looks like Montana is going to be the first to challenge the Feds on this, their law got signed by the Gov already goes into effect in October and they plan on challening the courts on it ASAP to get it right up to the Supreme Court before Obammy has a chance of filling it up with more libtards.

 

If this case wins, I see HUGE repercussions. And not just firearms, if they can assert their states rights in this matter, that leaves the door open to challenge them on practically everything. If it's not specifically laid out in the Constitution, it's up for the States, and the people to decide. Bet Obammy didn't think he'd have to contend with that his first term.

 

Go Tennessee!

Edited by Wotan1105
Link to post
Share on other sites
As soon as I can retire (end of next year with any luck) I am moving to Tennessee!

 

We will welcome you with open arms. :rolleyes: TX is also looking at a law like this.

I saw this on Glenn Beck Friday. There is a group trying to get each state to pass a bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to say be careful what you wish for right now the states are trying to assert their CONTROL over gun rights you MIGHT end up with regulations on guns and ammo that are even more restrictive than they currently are at the federal level. Especially when you consider how easily public opinion can changed given proper media coverage and funding by gun rights opposition groups. It would be much easier to pick off the states one at a time rather than all at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to say be careful what you wish for right now the states are trying to assert their CONTROL over gun rights you MIGHT end up with regulations on guns and ammo that are even more restrictive than they currently are at the federal level. Especially when you consider how easily public opinion can changed given proper media coverage and funding by gun rights opposition groups. It would be much easier to pick off the states one at a time rather than all at once.

 

Someone doesn't read the content of the proposed bills.

 

They ALL spell out LESS restrictive guidelines than the federal laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jeff Davis once said that he had no doubt that a future generation would take up the cause again..Because it was right.

 

Wherever the President and "Marsa Robert" are tonight..they must be smiling.

 

Ditto Sharpe45 but "dat be Marse Robert" here in the South

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a place Tennesse is, no state income tax, and now non-gov regulated gun? If only it were to include the full auto rifles, I would probably move 18 miles up the road to tennessee.

 

I do not, however, believe these statutes will survive the strict scrutiny of appellate review. The phrase of "in or affecting interstate commerce" doesn't just mean the guns. It means the material that goes into making the guns, how they are transported, what taxes are paid, advertising, etc................. all of which is in interstate commerce, so hence my disbelief, only if it were true. I would love to move just down the road and buy a new, fully auto M4...........

Link to post
Share on other sites
What a place Tennesse is, no state income tax, and now non-gov regulated gun? If only it were to include the full auto rifles, I would probably move 18 miles up the road to tennessee.

 

I do not, however, believe these statutes will survive the strict scrutiny of appellate review. The phrase of "in or affecting interstate commerce" doesn't just mean the guns. It means the material that goes into making the guns, how they are transported, what taxes are paid, advertising, etc................. all of which is in interstate commerce, so hence my disbelief, only if it were true. I would love to move just down the road and buy a new, fully auto M4...........

 

For something as important and fundamental as our arms we will find a way to make them wholly same state made. They did this back in the 18th and 19th centuries with their arms and today with CNC machines and such things we can sure as hell do it now. Prime example of a mass produced firearm by a"local" populace >>>> Sten MkII.

Edited by 690gr
Link to post
Share on other sites
interesting, so since when does state law trump federal?

 

All states are in a UNION based on the CONSTITUTION. The Constitution limits the powers of the FED and reserves all other abilities to make laws to the people or to the states. The FED has no legal standing for MOST of the laws they make but the states won't fight them. Now we're seeing a little bit of fighting. I say GOOD!

Link to post
Share on other sites
interesting, so since when does state law trump federal?

 

All states are in a UNION based on the CONSTITUTION. The Constitution limits the powers of the FED and reserves all other abilities to make laws to the people or to the states. The FED has no legal standing for MOST of the laws they make but the states won't fight them. Now we're seeing a little bit of fighting. I say GOOD!

 

+1 SaigaNoobie!

Link to post
Share on other sites
interesting, so since when does state law trump federal?

 

All states are in a UNION based on the CONSTITUTION. The Constitution limits the powers of the FED and reserves all other abilities to make laws to the people or to the states. The FED has no legal standing for MOST of the laws they make but the states won't fight them. Now we're seeing a little bit of fighting. I say GOOD!

 

If I'm understanding this correctly (Big if.), this is essentially the same situation as when Cali legalized medical weed. Its legal on the state level but theres nothing stopping the fed from coming down like a hammer on a bunch of geriatric joint-puffing cancer patients. My understanding was that Montana was trying to provoke just such an instance so that they could put their full legal muscle behind the first properly qualified individual, just like what happend with Heller. Thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i forgot who, but some important person said the most important, yet trampled constitutional amendment was the 10th amendment...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.

Edited by Modiano
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...