Do the States have the right to restrict firearms? - Page 3
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Do the States have the right to restrict firearms?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-02-2013, 12:54 AM   #21
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1101 Times on 676 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
A VERY good sized list indeed! Here is one excerpt that contains an interesting phrase:
"500. Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, 359 U.S. 520 (1959).

Illinois statute which requires trucks and trailers operating on state highways to be equipped with specified type of rear fender mud-guard, which is different from those permitted in at least 45 other States, and which would seriously interfere with "interline operations" of motor carriers cannot validly be applied to interstate motor carriers certified by the Interstate Commerce Commission, for the reason that interstate commerce is unreasonably burdened thereby."

One wonders whether much of the gun ban style legislation should be set aside "for the reason that RKBA is unreasonably burdened thereby"...
Glad you like

And no. Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government. Firearms are not regulated by anyone per the Second Amendment itself.

I love that list...SSSOOOOOO much info!!!
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun


Last edited by BigByrd47119; 02-02-2013 at 12:57 AM.
BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 01:44 AM   #22
Mommy, who lights the sun?
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,787
Liked 1793 Times on 1091 Posts
Likes Given: 2027

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigByrd47119 View Post
Glad you like

And no. Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government. Firearms are not regulated by anyone per the Second Amendment itself.

I love that list...SSSOOOOOO much info!!!
Wow. How I wish that was true. The Federal government and most of the States regulate firearms. Automatic weapons, magazines over a certain size, calibers over a certain size, places where you can carry, wait times for delivery, ... Need I go on?

2A calls for "A well-regulated militia...". Some regulation does make sense. Convicted felons, adjudicated incompetents, people whose judgment is impaired by necessary medication, perhaps non-citizens (though that probably deserves some debate) should be prevented by regulation from keeping and bearing arms. I could envision some level of competency / proficiency testing associated with licensing. The underlying principle would be the protection of the general public from incompetent or evil usage.

But the level of restriction we have today, in my opinion, far exceeds the original intent of 2A and far exceeds any reasonable concern about protection of the general public.
__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 4th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/4th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-oct-4-5-2014-a-105142/

Balota is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:09 AM   #23
JTJ
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JTJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lake Havasu,Arizona
Posts: 5,921
Liked 1847 Times on 1000 Posts
Likes Given: 563

Default

What we are seeing is the foreplay of a large political fornication. By defying the federal government the states are stating their displeasure of the actions of the federal government. It is setting the stage for secession. Our wannabe dictator has polarized the nation as never before. With legalization of undocumented democrats the balance will tip further to the left and that will not be acceptable to a lot of state governments.

__________________

Patron Member NRA
"I would not be an old man if I had not been an armed young man." JTJ
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of feces by the clean end."

JTJ is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:14 AM   #24
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1101 Times on 676 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balota View Post
Wow. How I wish that was true. The Federal government and most of the States regulate firearms. Automatic weapons, magazines over a certain size, calibers over a certain size, places where you can carry, wait times for delivery, ... Need I go on?

2A calls for "A well-regulated militia...". Some regulation does make sense. Convicted felons, adjudicated incompetents, people whose judgment is impaired by necessary medication, perhaps non-citizens (though that probably deserves some debate) should be prevented by regulation from keeping and bearing arms. I could envision some level of competency / proficiency testing associated with licensing. The underlying principle would be the protection of the general public from incompetent or evil usage.

But the level of restriction we have today, in my opinion, far exceeds the original intent of 2A and far exceeds any reasonable concern about protection of the general public.
The "thing" in the 2A to be regulated was the millitia. In addition, regulated then is not the same as today or so many historians have said. I have a argument for some felons being denied their 2A right, but this is not the place for that (feel free to PM me if your interested).

FWIW, every gun ban/registration has been under the guise of promoting public safety. Ask the people living in Germany in the 30's and 40's how that worked out
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
Balota Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:17 AM   #25
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JonM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Rochester WI,Rochester WI
Posts: 17,400
Liked 5498 Times on 2871 Posts
Likes Given: 357

Default

constitutionally?? no. the states do not have the right to violate any of the ammendments. or any of the constitution itself. the US constitution applies to the states in the exact same manner it applies to the federal government.

but in practice the states violate it and act in extremely unconstitutional roles more than the feds do.

__________________

"Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound." — L. Neil Smith

The problem with being stupid is you cannot simply decide to stop doing dumb things...

JonM is online now  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:29 AM   #26
Mommy, who lights the sun?
FTF_LIFETIMESUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Balota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Glenpool, Oklahoma
Posts: 2,787
Liked 1793 Times on 1091 Posts
Likes Given: 2027

Default

I agree, BigByrd. Hell, ask the people in the school at Sandy Hook how well the gun free zone regulations worked for them.

//rant on//
John Lott's studies show very clearly that every state that newly adopts a "shall issue" concealed carry permitting system has seen significant reductions in violent crime. Not "many", not "most", EVERY time there are reductions in violent crime. Similarly, every time there have been dramatic reductions in LAC access to guns (England, Australia, Mexico, ...) violent crime has risen.

None of the gun tragedies that spark the demand for further restrictions have been committed by a mentally competent LAC. None of the guns involved in those tragedies fired itself. Every one (with the possible exception of the attempted assassination of the Arizona congresswoman) was committed by a known-to-be-imbalanced person in a gun free zone.

We don't need to restrict the guns. We don't need to restrict the LACs. We need to restrict the individuals who are known to be imbalanced and we need to ELIMINATE gun free zones.

Dang, there goes my blood pressure again...
//rant off//

__________________

Balota
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Practice does NOT make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Check out 4th FTF Shoot & Hoot.http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f138/4th-ftf-shotgun-shoot-hoot-vanzant-mo-oct-4-5-2014-a-105142/

Balota is offline  
BigByrd47119 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 01:47 PM   #27
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 2,868
Liked 1858 Times on 1087 Posts
Likes Given: 885

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Tire View Post
The feds had nothing to do with New York passing the laws they just passed. The State of New York did this on their own without any influence from the feds. Any state can pass laws for that state if they get the votes. The two are not the same. Fed laws are for all and state laws are for each state, it is that simple.
Do you think the 'Jim Crow' laws were right and legal just because the 'state' passed them?????
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 01:50 PM   #28
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 2,868
Liked 1858 Times on 1087 Posts
Likes Given: 885

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Tire View Post
The state passes a law and then it is there to be challenged, simple. Just get thrown in jail and start writing checks to challenged it. It is not real complicated.
Yes it is, but it is not supposed to be. The Federal government SHOULD intervene when our individual rights are violated. The civil right act of 1983 says so!!!
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:19 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1101 Times on 676 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau View Post
Yes it is, but it is not supposed to be. The Federal government SHOULD intervene when our individual rights are violated. The civil right act of 1983 says so!!!
Thats a pretty damning inditment of the federal government, considering they often do (SCOTUS).
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2013, 02:26 PM   #30
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Idaho --,Happy
Posts: 1,905
Liked 341 Times on 237 Posts
Likes Given: 38

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRau View Post
Yes it is, but it is not supposed to be. The Federal government SHOULD intervene when our individual rights are violated. The civil right act of 1983 says so!!!
It is funny you think thats the way it's supposed to be, but that is the way it is. So why is it so-
__________________
Flat Tire is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Obama Sues To Restrict Military Voting PanBaccha Politics, Religion and Controversy 41 08-07-2012 04:55 PM
Neb. city votes to restrict illegal immigration Jo da Plumbr Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 06-23-2010 10:55 AM
Interesting article on bill to restrict BATFE Jeepix Legal and Activism 0 05-27-2010 06:43 PM
State moves to restrict Catholics in politics! Bigcountry02 Politics, Religion and Controversy 5 06-03-2009 04:12 AM
Firearms friendly states painted_klown Politics, Religion and Controversy 35 02-18-2009 12:13 AM