Ammo For Sale

« « The NRA is pushing for national concealed carry reciprocity | Home | A gun lawsuit to watch » »

When those states pass those Firearms Freedom laws . . .

The feds will still arrest and have you convicted:

Two Kansans face up to a decade in prison for making and selling silencers without registering them with the federal government or paying the special taxes. They say it’s allowed under state law. But a federal jury says it’s illegal.

23 Responses to “When those states pass those Firearms Freedom laws . . .”

  1. Tim Says:

    Sounds like the forgot to grease some fat, sweaty palms at the Clinton Foundation.

  2. Ken in NH Says:

    I hope they take it to SCOTUS so that we can hear more about how every breath we take is somehow interstate commerce.

  3. John Hardin Says:

    How about making for yourself?

  4. rickn8or Says:

    I’m with you Ken; it’s time that aspect of the ’34 NFA got looked at.

  5. SPQR Says:

    This shows the silliness of these state soverign firearms laws, the state can’t bust you out of federal prison.

  6. Jonathan Says:

    Eventually the feds are going to start doing the same with drug legalization, unfortunately.

  7. Ron W Says:

    If they were violating federal immigration laws, then they’d be protected.

  8. nk Says:

    Sigh. If some lawyer told them it was legal, he should be disbarred.

    BTW, NFA is not under the Commerce Clause. It’s under the taxing power. Pay your taxes!

  9. Robert Says:

    Hopefully gun laws get returned to the purview of the individual states where they belong and get the fedguv out of it.

  10. mikee Says:

    Robert, I don’t want to be limited in my firearm ownership by where I happen to live in the US. So I prefer nationwide limits on the infringements to the 2nd. But anything more enhancing of individual liberties, over and above the limits nationwide, state by state, would be OK by me.

    I, ro one, like the Arizona Constitutional Carry and would like the same to apply nationwide. And add in silencers being legal nationwide, and EBRs, and so on and so on and so on. Then New Jersey could still ban all the fully automatic firearms it wants to, but hollowpoints maybe would be OK there.

  11. Ron W Says:

    @Robert, yes IF, the plain wording of the Constitution was applied, then the “fedguv” should and would be “out of it”. According to Article I. Section 8.15-16, the Federal Government has NO delegated powers re: gun laws applying to the People, but only “for governing such part of the militia which is EMPLOYED in its service”. And according to the 10th Amendment, the Federal Government may do NOTHING without delegated powers from the States and the People.

  12. rickn8or Says:

    Hopefully gun laws get returned to the purview of the individual states where they belong and get the fedguv out of it.

    States like California, New Jersey, New York??

  13. Will Says:

    So, when the feds showed up to grab these guys, where where the state officers to stop them? If they can’t/won’t do that, then the state is just blowing smoke.

  14. Richard Says:

    @RonW “If they were violating federal immigration laws, then they’d be protected.”

    I think we are about to get a test of whether nullification can stand.

  15. Robert Says:

    Mikee, I don’t want to be limited either, BUT it is what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The states have the right to limit (or even completely outlaw) firearms. That is why it is important for each state to have similar wording in their Constitution to protect citizens from an over-reaching government.

    If this power is removed from the Federal Government (which should never have had the power in the first place, but they usurped it) then the states are the first and last line of defense as it should be.

    Now as it stands, your state can say anything they want to say (such as in this article) but the Fed Gov steps in and removes the power of the states to do anything.

  16. Patrick Says:

    @Ron W, et al: you all forget the 14th Amendment during these discussion, and it is the primary vehicle for civil rights enforcement against the states.

    I really hate the term “States Rights” because states have zero rights. Rights are things reserved for humans. No government should ever have a “right” because that sets up an unholy competition that individual people will always lose. States have “powers” and the 10th was meant to define the limitations of federal power; but later amendments specifically and intentionally modified federal power to force states to recognize individual rights recognized by the federal but ignored by some states (think: emancipation). That was a specific and intentional re-balancing of the limitations of the Tenth. Every discussion of “states rights” (hate that term) is broken without the context of Reconstruction-era Constitutional modifications.

    Two whit: the 14th allows the federal to enforce ‘rights’ anywhere in the USA, and that enforcement reigns supreme over state law. It is an explicit reach beyond the Federalist approach and limits of the Tenth Amendment.

    The 14th was a Reconstruction-era amendment meant to force some states (mostly southern) into recognition of basic rights for emancipated persons. The 14th was laregely gutted about 5 years after ratification via some slippery and evil shenanigans, and that gutting resulted in a lot of the criticisms we have of it today.

    The 14th was designed to limit the power of a state to disenfranchise the rights of an individual. The beauty of that original construction was that it created a competition between the federal and the states to see who could better protect individual rights. If the state failed to comply, then the fed could force the matter.

    As pertains to guns, the 14th should stop states from banning guns while allowing them to also do more for gun owners than the bare minimum (McDonald used the 14th to implement the 2nd against the states, FWIW). For instance, the 14th could protect the right to carry nationwide but Arizona could create an even more permissive system. It would not let New York ban carry entirely, though. The 14th sets a “floor” on the recognition of rights, not the ceiling.

    So far the Courts have not been willing to take it that far, but I hold out hope for a fwe more justices of the Thomas/Alito/Scalia variety.

    The problems: That “14th amendment gutting” forced courts who wanted to apply the 14th to invent a new legal mechanism for civil-rights enforcement against the states (“Substantive Due Process”). Unfortunately that invention also allowed creation of newly recognized rights that were not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. “Originalists” are willing to use the 14th to enforce the writes written in the Constitution “”enumerated rights”), while the living-document progressive jurists think they have carte-blanche to make it up as they go along.

    Hilarity ensues (Roe v Wade, etc.).

  17. Robert Says:

    rickn8or I don’t like the laws in those states either, but it is up to the citizens in those states to elect officials that will uphold their freedoms.

    I live in Missouri and we have fought long and hard to have very good protection for the legal use of firearms and the legal use of lethal force. We are not done yet, but we have made some great progress. Just recently our legislature overrode a governor veto which allowed license free concealed carry in most places. Definitely as step in the right direction.

  18. Patrick Says:

    @Robert: if by “usurp” you mean, “the People of the United States of America, by acting through their elected Congress and at least two-thirds of its state legislatures did legally enact modification to the US Constitution to allow the federal government to enforce enumerated federal rights against the states”, then you are correct.

    But otherwise, wrong.

    New York must recognize the right to bear arms not because of a “legal usurpation” by an out-of-control federal bench. It had to recognize the right because the right exists under the federal Constitution (Heller) and it was applicable under the 14th Amendment (McDonald).

    This was the intentional, direct act of US People wo ratified the 14th in 1868. The fact it took more than 100 years for the 2nd to get recognized is a shame, but not surprising.

  19. Patrick Says:

    And to head off some argument with me, the federal should not be able to limit a states willingness to permit silencer construction within its borders. When push comes to shove, the commerce clause should be subservient to the recognized rights of the people. Same with MGs.

    A lot of this can be traced back to some farmer in the depression who dared to feed his livestock with this own grain.

    But I’ve written enough on that and the caffeine is wearing out.

  20. rickn8or Says:

    Robert, could Tennessee borrow your Legislature for a while? We promise to send them right back and not teach them any bad habits.

    It seems all ours is good for is keeping embarrassing or controversial legislation off the Governor’s desk.

  21. Lyle Says:

    “you all forget the 14th Amendment during these discussion, and it is the primary vehicle for civil rights enforcement against the states.”

    Patrick; I believe you refer to what is known as Incorporation Doctrine.

  22. Patrick Says:

    @Lyle: I was too wordy as it was. But yes. Was trying to speak from a philosophical context, to explain why I always say “states powers” and never “states rights”.

    Thanks, and please have a good Thanksgiving.

  23. Ron W Says:

    What rickn8or said.

    And the Federal Government is not “the supreme law of the land”, the Constitution is ( Article VI , Section 2) by which the States created it and limited it to delegated powers according to the plain wording of the 10th Amendment. The greater creates the lesser and the greater delegates to the lesser.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives