States Fighting Back~

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Sniper03, Feb 18, 2013.

  1. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    7,665
    60
    48
    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/201...ng-federal-reach-on-gun-rights/#ixzz2LJ9Y77S6
     
  2. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    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.
     

  3. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    I disagree ROBO... DC Dems know exactly what an "unconstitutional" law is... They write them ALL THE TIME!

    Tack
     
  4. jungleman

    jungleman New Member

    81
    0
    0
    I live in the U.K. and understand the 2nd, however, I often wonder why many gun owners NEED so many guns/rifles.
    Jungleman.
     
  5. ShagNasty1001

    ShagNasty1001 New Member

    1,526
    0
    0
    Because we want them! :p
     
  6. Garadex

    Garadex New Member

    1,267
    0
    0
    Why do we need the jumbo soda and fries? We don't but we want em! I enjoy my guns, all of them.
     
  7. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    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.
     
  8. Str8tShooter

    Str8tShooter New Member

    25
    0
    0
    Do any of us need to go to Great Britain?

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

    TNFrank New Member

    293
    0
    0
    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. ;)
     
  10. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    Ummm, this kinda drives the point home...


    April 19, 1775

    Battles of Lexington and Concord.

    Regular British troops were ordered to confiscate civilian arms.
     

    Attached Files:

  11. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    0
    0
    Excellent points about need but no one mentioned the most important need. The purpose of 2A Liberty is to stop tyranny "foreign or domestic", by force, if need be.

    While 100 Million of us own gun... 230 Million of our neighbors do do not.

    Personally, I like to collect them... And I really like the fact that if push comes to shove, not only can I outfit myself... I could also arm a dozen like minded individuals.

    Hopefully that would never be necessary in the Land of the Free, bit these days, once can never quite tell. :cool:

    Tack
     
  12. rocshaman

    rocshaman New Member

    3,250
    0
    0
    It's called freedom man. Why do coin collectors need so many coins? Why not just one, really nice and rare coin.
     
  13. Shade

    Shade New Member

    1,720
    0
    0
    It is obvious, by your statement, that you do not understand the Second
    Amendment. The Second Amendment was written so that the citizenry
    could when needed, take back our government from tyrants!

    Other than my wife; How many guns I own, how much ammo I own is
    nobody's business.
     
  14. Jpyle

    Jpyle New Member

    4,828
    0
    0
    Because need is a personal decision. There is no needs test in the 2nd Amendment so everyone is free to determine how many is enough. Personally I see no need for Piers Morgan to be on TV, there are plenty of like-minded hosts with similar shows but I respect his 1st Amendment rights as I expect him to respect mine.

    Living in the UK I suspect that you are familiar with the rights protected by our Constitution but you have never really experienced them and cannot fully appreciate the lengths that many of us here in America will go to preserve and protect them.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2013
  15. sdiver35

    sdiver35 New Member

    1,183
    1
    0
    There's no need to even answer the question.
     
  16. WNGMSTR

    WNGMSTR Troll Scout

    1,418
    0
    0
    It is not a bill of needs, it is a "Bill of Rights".
     
  17. ninjatoth

    ninjatoth New Member

    1,733
    0
    0
    Michigan is more or less putting up bills that say if our constitutional rights are infringed upon,than the contract we made with America to be a part of the united states would be void...or something along those lines.
     
  18. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    7,665
    60
    48
    Jungleman,

    There are a lot of reasons why some of us have several guns.

    1. It is our Constitutional Right. The Constitution and the Second Amendment protects those rights.
    2. It keeps the American People safe from a Tyrannical Government
    3. Years ago they won our freedom from the United Kingdom (No reflection on you!)
    4. In World War II it was a proven fact that the only reason the Japanese did not attack the American home land was that Yamamoto and high officer with the Japanese Army stated "We should not attack the American homeland because there would be a weapon behind every blade of grass in America! Which proved it was the sheer number of American citizens and all their firepower that prevented invasion on American soil. And proved they were more afraid of the American citizens than they were the American Military.
    5. Some of us have several weapons that are heirlooms and have been passed down for years in the families! And while we are on that issue. Most Americans would be willing to die to protect them! If they want my grandfathers weapons they will get them but not the way they want!
    6. Some of us are avid shooters in several disciplines and categories which requires various weapons.
    7. Many hunt various types and sizes of game in the field which requires a weapon for each
    8. Some just simply like weapons for the sake of collecting them and admiring their craftsmanship.
    9. Various weapons for personal protection and conditions. Larger pistols in cold weather and possibly smaller in warm or hot weather so they can be easily concealed.
    10. Weapons can be used for bartering should terrible times come about.
    11. Various weapons for adults vs young children depending on stature and size reasons
    12. For investment! I have some that have matured value wise. Some over 300+% since the day I purchased them. Try to get that kind of return on money from a bank or investment!

    Sorry Jungleman for the lengthy comments below. But regarding your question here are some additional thoughts to reveal how we feel about our Second Amendment Rights. And what is going on at the present time regarding the shooters and companies standing thier ground. I think it is FANTASTIC!

    Anyway, the bottom line is we are Americans and have Constitutional and Second Amendment Rights! Which we will defend! Wish you did as well! Come to America and enjoy Freedom at least in most states! By the way, do not move to Colorado, New York, California, Illinois, Ohio and some of the other Liberal eastern states. The liberals there are getting ready to have there own specific share of major problems for attacking the gun owners and manufacturers here in the USA. Companies are advising the sales of restricted and ban products will apply also to law enforcement sales! No special weapons or special treatment. They will not sell anything to anyone in that state that is in violation of the imposed ban. Other Governors of other states are inviting the companies who are looking at relocating to relocate in their states who are more Second Amendment friendly and offering tax advantages! *That is POing the Liberal. I have contacted Congresswoman Diane Black and Senator Bob Corker regarding offering invitations for the companies to possibly relocate in Tennessee! For those liberal states, I hope they enjoy loosing their tax base the companies and some of the citizens who will also be relocating with the company. One company this week who employs 600 people are planning on moving their company out of Colorado! Hurray for them!!!! Magpul! Others are in the process, which will result for tax loss and higher unemployment issues as the companies leave their idiotic anti-Second Amendment States. Most of them (Democratic States) who are already on the brink of bankruptcy at the present! "They deserve what the get"! And I hope they pay dearly!;) Those companies taking a stand and or relocating will certainly get my business in the future. I own a weapon related training company, My Instructors and I will no longer be presenting any classes in any of the states that have taken this liberal anti Second Amendment postion on our weapons! Claiming an Asualt Rifle Ban! We conduct about 55-65 schools per year. I do not need their business. There are too many pro Second Amendment good states that request our schools. We just advised the State of New York "today" we would not anylonger consider do any schools in their state under the present conditions until things changed. Not looking for that in the near future. This is the same state that banned "Large Cokes" and one Mayor (NYC) wanted to take infamil baby formula off the shelf in an attempt to force or promote breast feeding. Screwed up? I would say a Big YES! Wouldn't you!

    03
     
  19. robocop10mm

    robocop10mm Lifetime Supporting Member Lifetime Supporter

    11,380
    1
    0
    To me, firearms are useful precision works of art. Much like fine time pieces. The craftsmanship of a classic N-frame S&W revolver is timeless.
     
  20. Mack Bolan

    Mack Bolan New Member

    878
    0
    0
    very well put Robo....

    I like to compare them to the models I made as a kid, except they're metal with a more serious working function, an engineers daydream, granted their function requires an adult attitude with regards to their safe handling and usage, but so does working with electricity, gas engines, race cars, and sharp knives....likely a plethora of similar comparable examples.