Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   States Fighting Back~ (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/states-fighting-back-84563/)

Sniper03 02-19-2013 01:27 AM

States Fighting Back~
 
Information~
States across the country are trying to protect gun ownership from the long arm of Washington by proposing bills declaring that firearms made and kept within their borders are not subject to federal restrictions.

Nine states have proposed such legislation since President Obama and fellow Democrats in the Senate began trying to tighten federal gun laws in the wake of several mass shootings that occurred within months of each other.

“There’s a lot of momentum,” Montana activist Gary Marbut told FoxNews.com on Monday.

Marbut was behind the original Firearms Freedom Act, which says the Commerce Clause allowing Congress to regulate inter-state commerce does not apply to the in-state manufacturing, selling and ownership of firearms. Montana passed the bill in 2009.

Since then, a host of other states have tried to pass copycat legislation. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have proposed such legislation since January -- following the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting in which 20 first-graders and six adults were killed inside a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

However, Montana's legislation is hardly settled law. Shortly after the law passed in his state, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wrote Marbut to say federal law still supersedes.

Marbut acknowledges he wrote the legislation to set up a legal challenge and “roll back a half a century of bad precedent.”

The bill is scheduled to finally get its day in court when the Ninth Circuit begins oral arguments March 4. Marbut expects to lose in the liberal-leaning court, which includes San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore. But he thinks such a decision will put him in a better position to appeal to the country’s highest court.

“The mood of the country is right for the Supreme Court to consider what I think is a great mistake,” said Marbut.

Marbut, a shooting-range supplier, says existing big-name gun manufacturers are “not players” in the case because they have a nationwide market regulated by federal law. However, small upstart companies including gunsmiths and mom-and-pop operations would likely be able to make and sell guns within states, if the courts rule in his favor.

“Making firearms is not rocket science,” Marbut said.

The proposals have gotten plenty of push back. State Democratic Rep. Robyn Driscoll criticized the Montana legislature for passing the law at the time, telling The Wall Street Journal a couple years ago that lawmakers would not support funding for education or women’s clinics but passed “this blatantly unconstitutional bill to pay for a Supreme Court fight.”

Montana passed the law at a time when gun control still was not widely discussed on Capitol Hill. Now, Obama and Senate Democrats have proposed legislation that essentially calls for a universal background check for potential gun buyers and re-instituting a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

While the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocacy groups have mounted their opposition based largely on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Marbut is focused on the 10th Amendment that focuses more on the limits of federal power.

Eight states including Montana, Arizona, Alaska and Tennessee have passed similar legislation, while 17 have had bills proposed but not passed in prior sessions.

03



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/18/nine-states-proposing-montana-like-law-challenging-federal-reach-on-gun-rights/#ixzz2LJ9Y77S6

robocop10mm 02-19-2013 01:35 AM

I love it when DB Dems declare something like this "blatent unconstitutional" when it is nothing of the sort. They would not know an unconstitutional law if it slapped them on the azz.

Cost the State a bunch of money? Last time I checked State's Attorney's General had salaried staffs. They have to be doing something 40 hrs a week.

Tackleberry1 02-19-2013 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robocop10mm (Post 1143605)
I love it when DB Dems declare something like this "blatent unconstitutional" when it is nothing of the sort. They would not know an unconstitutional law if it slapped them on the azz.

Cost the State a bunch of money? Last time I checked State's Attorney's General had salaried staffs. They have to be doing something 40 hrs a week.

I disagree ROBO... DC Dems know exactly what an "unconstitutional" law is... They write them ALL THE TIME!

Tack

jungleman 02-19-2013 01:17 PM

I live in the U.K. and understand the 2nd, however, I often wonder why many gun owners NEED so many guns/rifles.
Jungleman.

ShagNasty1001 02-19-2013 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungleman
I live in the U.K. and understand the 2nd, however, I often wonder why many gun owners NEED so many guns/rifles.
Jungleman.

Because we want them! :p

Garadex 02-19-2013 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungleman
I live in the U.K. and understand the 2nd, however, I often wonder why many gun owners NEED so many guns/rifles.
Jungleman.

Why do we need the jumbo soda and fries? We don't but we want em! I enjoy my guns, all of them.

trip286 02-19-2013 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungleman (Post 1144029)
I live in the U.K. and understand the 2nd, however, I often wonder why many gun owners NEED so many guns/rifles.
Jungleman.

This kind of statement can really open a can of worms.

What it really comes down to, is many people have "imagined needs", and have way more firearms than they really "must have". But, the point is, we Can. That's what freedom does for ya, it allows you to buy what you want.

The real question is this, "why do gun banners see a need to tell us what we can and can't have? Why do they think it's their job to decide what we do or do not need?"

How many people drive way more of a car than they need? My mom occasionally commutes her 5 mile drive to and from work in her F-250 super duty, when it's rainy or cold out. She usually rides her motorcycle on the nice days. Does she need a truck like that? Hell no. My step dad has one similar, but long wheel base and stick shift, for hauling loads. Heck, my mom has only used the 4 wheel drive on her's maybe twice. She doesn't need it. But she wants it, she can afford it, and she paid it off already, a 5 year loan in 3 years.

My parents don't need their horses either. But they like them, and they enjoy riding them occasionally. They've never been used as actual transportation other than recreational. Actually, the cost/benefit ratio is way out of whack. They cost way more to keep than any actual value they get from having them.

I don't need a smart phone. But it's nice. I survived until I was 21 without a cell phone though, and even then, I got a cheap Nokia. I only ever got a cell phone because my son was due to be born any day. Sure enough, he was born 4 days after I got it, and I didn't even need the damn thing, his mom went into labor when I got home from work.

I don't need even the mid sized little 4 door sedan I have. I could make do with a Ford Fiesta, cheaper and with better gas mileage. Or even a "Smart for2" I commute about 3 miles daily. I did get a new tire for my bicycle, but I have a little boy I have to look after too, and he doesn't need to be riding his bike with me on the side of the state highway if I were to decide to ride it to work. But he could, the highway has a very wide shoulder until you get into town, at which point we could use the sidewalks.

I've never needed a gun as a civilian to defend against an attack by another person. The three times I've had to defend myself against an attacker as a civilian, I used my fists once, a stick the second time, and a lit cigarette butt to an eyeball the third time. I was actually armed two of those times. I have, however, used a gun against a raccoon I suspected of being rabid while I was taking out the trash one evening.

Do I need Quilted Northern bathroom tissue? No. I've used... other means before. But does it feel good on my bum after a head call? Hell yeah it does.

NEEDS? Who cares? What's really needed, is for legislators to keep their damn noses out of our business, especially if we are harming no one.

Str8tShooter 02-19-2013 02:50 PM

Do any of us need to go to Great Britain?

Not really, but some may want to......

TNFrank 02-19-2013 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungleman (Post 1144029)
I live in the U.K. and understand the 2nd, however, I often wonder why many gun owners NEED so many guns/rifles.
Jungleman.

Some people collect stamps, some pocket knives, others rare books and still others like to collect firearms. It has nothing at all to do with NEED, they simply WANT to collect them.
I currently only have one firearm, a Glock G19 and only two mags for it, both with +2 bottoms so that's 17 rounds per mag. I also have an air rifle that I really enjoy shooting, it's cheap to shoot, I can shoot it in my garage and it's very accurate. That being said I'd NEVER sell my Glock to buy more air guns because I NEED the Glock for Home Defense and for my CCW gun.
I see nothing wrong at all with folks owning whatever type of firearm they WANT as long as they don't use it to break the law with. Same with a 700HP Corvette, you don't NEED that much Horse Power in a car, you don't NEED a car that'll do 160mph but as long as you use it within the legal speed limit then I see no problem with you owning one. Same for an AR, long as you're using it legally to defend your hearth and home or for target shooting then you should be able to own all of em' you want. NEED has nothing at all to do with it, this is the United States of America, we should have the Freedom to own, or do anything we want as long as it doesn't infringe on other's Rights or hurt anyone else. ;)

Shade 02-19-2013 03:38 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Ummm, this kinda drives the point home...


April 19, 1775

Battles of Lexington and Concord.

Regular British troops were ordered to confiscate civilian arms.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.