Gun possession law revolt among U.S. States

Examiner.com ^ | March 11, 2010 | Martha

[usalady]

An increasing number of U.S. states are revolting against the Federal Government's attempts to control the possession of firearms.

[Gilbo_3]

good on ya jon...

very shortly my OC routine will be in place as well...

[556x45]

Of course the fed judiciary is going to over rule the states. The point is what occurs in the field when the law is tested. I suspect it’ll end in a shoot out or nearly so. Then there’s the state response...will they roll over or give the fed the single finger salute? The various states presumably didn’t go thru this exercise just to play dead. I think things are nearly at a tipping point and it won’t take much more from DC to start some real trouble.

[rarestia]

Thanks for the clarification. Seems really... dumb... to me. What’s to stop the FedGuv from doing what they’ve done heretofore with Commerce Clause garbage, etc. That doesn’t strike me as something our Founders intended.

As far as Roe, I’m not interested. I know where I stand on the issue, and there’s nothing that the finding needs to tell me except that women can legally destroy a life.

[RanGreHad]

I fully support your efforts to carry legally. if Congress began legislating on carrying, a strong argument could be made that Congress exceeded its authority, and that the commerce clause does not apply. But many states have reciprocity agreements with other states on carrying, so it remains an open question whether Congress could legislate on the matter.

[rbosque]

BTTT.

[RanGreHad]

You might want to consider American history, 1861-1865. It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.

[ClearCase_guy]

I’d like to see a do-over on that.

[RanGreHad]

My personal view is that the commerce clause has been badly abused. FDR wanted the power, and SCOTUS upheld the New Deal laws. So there it is. If SCOTUS severely restricts the cc, it will create a profound change in the United States.

[RanGreHad]

LOL!

[JimRed]

That reminds me; our former Sheriff is now Lt. Governor. I’ll have to apply for a carry permit to see if anything’s changed with our new county Sheriff.

New Jersey’s “may issue” is typically more like “may issue but probably won’t”.

[bamahead]

ping

[rarestia]

Any recommendations for “light” reading on the Commerce Clause? I’d like a neutral write up, but I wouldn’t care if it’s slanted. I’ve been socialized in the school systems already.

[rw4site]

Roe v Wade pertained to a Texas law denying abortions and was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

As the SCOTUS found the right of women to have abortions in the Constitution where it doesn’t exist, they could well find that the 10th and 2nd do not apply to the states. They’re wrong, but they make the rules. So far anyway.

IMHO this subject is about state sovereignty and is backed by the Constitution.

[RanGreHad]

You might look at James M. Burns, “FDR: The Lion and the Fox,” a pro-FDR biography, but it will give you information on how the commerce clause was used as a vehicle to promote the New Deal. You might check up on how the Brady Law uses the commerce clause—books by John Lott (google them).

[arthurus]

I am always amazed at conservatives worrying about whenther the 2amd was meant to apply to the states or just to Congress. It is the one amendment with universal wording. Other amendments place prohibitions specifically on Congress-"Congress shall make no law..." 2Amd says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." There is no mention of Congress or anyone else. It is a universal prohibition. I used to think that private property owners could ban carry on their property but that amendment says "shall not be infringed" - infringed by whom? infringed by anyone at all. There are no limits on who may not infringe. It does not limit who may or may not infringe nor does it limit against whom there may or may not be infringement.

[CodeToad]

“It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.”

Which is why the people in the federal government had best remember that as they are seriously outnumbered.

[meyer]

It was called The Civil War, and it did not end well for the losers.

It seldom ends well for the losers in a war.

[goat granny]

Interesting FYI on Roe...the backers of Roe went to federal court and up front admitted they went that way cause it would be too expensive to go state by state...

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks bamahead. Primarily a recap of much of what we have already discussed here. Always good to see the issue getting more “face time” though. Added our “10thamendment” tag for future reference.

[rarestia]

Which is why the people in the federal government had best remember that as they are seriously outnumbered.

Numbers mean nothing, FRiend. If there isn't a fire in the belly of those willing to fight, then the message will never get out and most of us would just assume give up our rights to "live," instead of facing a hail of bullets.

Personally, I'll take the Henry Bowman road out of town.