States Fighting Back~
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > States Fighting Back~

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-19-2013, 02:27 AM   #1
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sniper03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,326
Liked 2680 Times on 1304 Posts
Likes Given: 1348

Default 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

__________________

The Constitution is not an instrument for the Government to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the Government!
*Patrick Henry

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-- John F. Kennedy

Sniper03 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 02-19-2013, 02:35 AM   #2
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,274
Liked 2952 Times on 1538 Posts
Likes Given: 263

Default

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.

__________________

In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball

robocop10mm is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 02:51 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,076
Liked 4887 Times on 2369 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
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
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
5
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 02:17 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Spalding. U.K.,Lincolnshire, U.K.
Posts: 81
Default

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

__________________

There is no such thing as a problem,only a solution.

jungleman is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 02:42 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ShagNasty1001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,526
Liked 460 Times on 267 Posts
Likes Given: 22

Default

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!
__________________
ShagNasty1001 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 02:48 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Garadex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 1,267
Liked 225 Times on 176 Posts
Likes Given: 228

Default

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.
__________________

I'm gonna stop you right there, you just said an AR-15 is a high-powered rifle. It is obvious you don't know anything about guns and I shall ignore anything you say from this point on.

Garadex is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 03:07 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9205 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleman View Post
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.
__________________
trip286 is offline  
7
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 03:50 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25
Liked 8 Times on 7 Posts

Default

Do any of us need to go to Great Britain?

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

__________________
Str8tShooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 04:16 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TNFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: TN. U.S.A.
Posts: 293
Liked 125 Times on 68 Posts
Likes Given: 130

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jungleman View Post
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.
__________________
http://www.infowars.com/
Member: Gun Owners of America
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here!
This is the War Room!"
TNFrank is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2013, 04:38 PM   #10
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Shade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kankakee County,Illinois
Posts: 1,766
Liked 714 Times on 431 Posts
Likes Given: 860

Default

Ummm, this kinda drives the point home...


April 19, 1775

Battles of Lexington and Concord.

Regular British troops were ordered to confiscate civilian arms.

original-assault-rifle.jpg  
__________________
An Armed man is a Citizen,
An Unarmed man is a Subject. -- Unknown

"I am prepared are you?" -- Shade

"Regulation, registration, confiscation, domination, that's the Progressive agenda." -- RED Caddy

Shade is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
AR gun fighting course marine04 Texas Gun Forum 22 09-24-2012 12:30 PM
The Fighting Carbine MikeJK AR-15 Discussion 5 06-30-2012 12:41 AM
Who is really fighting for us. JTJ Politics, Religion and Controversy 7 09-29-2011 03:25 AM
9 states back Arizona General_lee Politics, Religion and Controversy 13 07-21-2010 06:32 PM
States that Won't Allow Back-Ups When CCW Captain38 Concealed Carrying & Personal Protection 10 04-15-2009 01:17 PM