|
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 18:04:23 -0700, Califbill billnews wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one. If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal, ex post facto. That is yet another constitutional violation. You could have purchased it legally, but then met requirements to get rid of your weapons. Convicted of a felony, domestic violence, not a felony, etc. not a Constitutional violation. Just enforcement of laws governing who can possess a firearm. That involves "Due Process", one of the things that the constitution says can trump your rights. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 08:52:58 -0400, John H.
wrote: If I am caught carrying a concealed weapon in Virginia, and I don't have a permit, then I am in violation of the law. I'm guessing that's the law in most states. === There's a lot of ambiguity about what constitutes a concealed weapon. If you have one in your vehicle it's best to have a CCW permit and remove all doubt. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. So why weren't they prosecuted? For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. It is unlikely that ATF is going to condone breaking a federal law. The only way they would is if it was a sting that was going to result in arrests. In that case, ATF agents would have gone along. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:26:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
In Virginia, it is even more bizarre. When I sold a SIG semi-auto pistol I owned to a Virginia buyer, I called the state police to find out what the procedure was. For two Virginia residents, there was no procedure...just sell it and hand it over, no checks involved. But I was out of state, and even at that, the state police told me they really didn't care, since the state was awash in handgun transfers. Well, I wanted an official paper trail, so I arranged for a Virginia FFL to handle the transfer for a few bucks. You ignore the federal law about interstate transfers. At Virginia gunshows, there are individuals walking around carrying firearms they will sell to you, on an individual to individual basis. No instant background check, no waiting period. That's part of the gunshow loophole that Johnnymop Herring says doesn't exist but, of course, he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. That happens everywhere in the US, including Maryland. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. So if I rob 3 banks in 2 states, crossing 4 state lines (just to show how easy it is) and turn the money over to the cops I get to walk away? |
Trump Seals His Fate
True North wrote:
Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Â*Don't worry about it. Â*In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. Look at the gun regulation in Canada. Any mass shootings? As Greg says, until we teach people to fight back, they will be lambs to slaughter. |
Trump Seals His Fate
wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 08:52:58 -0400, John H. wrote: If I am caught carrying a concealed weapon in Virginia, and I don't have a permit, then I am in violation of the law. I'm guessing that's the law in most states. === There's a lot of ambiguity about what constitutes a concealed weapon. If you have one in your vehicle it's best to have a CCW permit and remove all doubt. In California, you can have the firearm in the car, without a permit, if it is not loaded and is in a locked case. And not in a school zone. Use to have too be locked in the trunk, but that was tossed as lots of vehicles have no trunk. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 12:51 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:17:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:36 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one. If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal, ex post facto. That is yet another constitutional violation. Man, has this discussion gone off topic. Maybe my fault for not being more precise in what I've been yapping about. To answer your question (above) ... in some states ... including mine ... you cannot legally purchase, own or have in your possession a gun *unless* you have a state issued permit to own a firearm. Nothing to do with federal law. If you own or have in your possession a firearm but do *not* have a state issued permit, you are subject to arrest, jail and/or fine. Is that clear enough? You can make that case if the gun was purchased after the permit law was passed. You are talking about making an ex post facto law applying to something that was purchased before the law was passed. To the best of my knowledge and based on conversations with other MA gun owners, if you are old enough to have obtained a firearm before the permit to own law took effect (1998, I think), you are still required to obtain a permit to own. You are given some period of time to do so. I've read also that if you inherit a firearm and do not have a permit to own, you have a 60 grace period to get the permit. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 12:02 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:51:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. And my point is that the lack of enforcement of the existing laws, which both CNN and the sellers broke, is the damn problem. Why are more laws needed if they're not enforced? If I were in Massachusetts with large capacity magazines for my semi-auto AR-15 all in the trunk, I'd be breaking MA laws (unless my CWP sufficed). How would your laws have prevented me from using that AR-15 with the 100-round drum magazine to shoot a bunch of folks? That's what is so wacky about some of the state gun laws. For example, my "Class A" permit in Massachusetts allows just about anything other than machine guns. Concealed carry and large capacity magazines for both handguns and rifles are included with this permit. However, a different MA law does not allow large capacity magazines for anything. Magazines are limited to 10 rounds, max. So, what's the point in having a permit that makes it legal to have a large capacity magazine if the state won't allow you to have one? It's stupid. What is needed is unified gun laws at the federal level. There's no rational reason in the world why anyone needs a 100-round drum magazine in this day and age. Ban them and their manufacture for gun hobbyist everywhere. Sorry to give you morning heartburn. :-) Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change. So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/4/2015 12:02 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:51:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. And my point is that the lack of enforcement of the existing laws, which both CNN and the sellers broke, is the damn problem. Why are more laws needed if they're not enforced? If I were in Massachusetts with large capacity magazines for my semi-auto AR-15 all in the trunk, I'd be breaking MA laws (unless my CWP sufficed). How would your laws have prevented me from using that AR-15 with the 100-round drum magazine to shoot a bunch of folks? That's what is so wacky about some of the state gun laws. For example, my "Class A" permit in Massachusetts allows just about anything other than machine guns. Concealed carry and large capacity magazines for both handguns and rifles are included with this permit. However, a different MA law does not allow large capacity magazines for anything. Magazines are limited to 10 rounds, max. So, what's the point in having a permit that makes it legal to have a large capacity magazine if the state won't allow you to have one? It's stupid. What is needed is unified gun laws at the federal level. There's no rational reason in the world why anyone needs a 100-round drum magazine in this day and age. Ban them and their manufacture for gun hobbyist everywhere. Sorry to give you morning heartburn. :-) Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change. So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. If a federal law exists, then it should be enforced. But, overall I don't think we're saying the same thing. You seem to feel that every state should have the same laws as your state. I disagree. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/2015 3:06 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 12:02 PM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 10:51:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 10:22 AM, John H. wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/4/2015 8:58 AM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:21:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:43 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 15:24:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 2:29 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:50:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Again, the idea of a license/permit requirement everywhere (all states) won't sit well with many people, especially since a background check is usually required to obtain one in the states in which they are required. The background check for guns is a federal law. (Brady) It's imposed on federally licensed dealers only. Does not apply to private sales. It is still illegal to conduct a private sale across state lines. When the CNN crew went to Tennessee and South Carolina and bought guns, they broke federal laws, on camera. When they took them across state lines they broke another federal law. The Tennessee guns crossed 3 state lines and the South Carolina gun crossed one. There were at least a half dozen counts at 5 years each. Why aren't they doing 30 years? The people that sold them the guns also violated federal law. That was the point of the whole documentary ... to show how easy it is to purchase guns with no records kept. For all we know, CNN may have informed authorities as to what they were doing beforehand. IIRC, the purchased guns were turned in to authorities. Well, there you go. What would more laws have done? If CNN had *really* wanted to help the problem, they would have called the local cops immediately. John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. And my point is that the lack of enforcement of the existing laws, which both CNN and the sellers broke, is the damn problem. Why are more laws needed if they're not enforced? If I were in Massachusetts with large capacity magazines for my semi-auto AR-15 all in the trunk, I'd be breaking MA laws (unless my CWP sufficed). How would your laws have prevented me from using that AR-15 with the 100-round drum magazine to shoot a bunch of folks? That's what is so wacky about some of the state gun laws. For example, my "Class A" permit in Massachusetts allows just about anything other than machine guns. Concealed carry and large capacity magazines for both handguns and rifles are included with this permit. However, a different MA law does not allow large capacity magazines for anything. Magazines are limited to 10 rounds, max. So, what's the point in having a permit that makes it legal to have a large capacity magazine if the state won't allow you to have one? It's stupid. What is needed is unified gun laws at the federal level. There's no rational reason in the world why anyone needs a 100-round drum magazine in this day and age. Ban them and their manufacture for gun hobbyist everywhere. Sorry to give you morning heartburn. :-) Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change. So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. If a federal law exists, then it should be enforced. But, overall I don't think we're saying the same thing. You seem to feel that every state should have the same laws as your state. I disagree. Not at all. MA has some of the screwiest and contradictory gun laws in the country. I'd like to see them simplified, cleaned up and de-politicalized. MA is the only state in the nation that does not recognize any other state permits and does not have reciprocal agreements with any other state. But, it's not the only state with screwed up laws that are out of sync with both federal laws or other state's laws. The answer, to me, is to have a common, federal law that applies to all states. That's going to take some compromise here and there. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change. So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. === Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out west would disagree. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:49:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/4/2015 1:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. So if I rob 3 banks in 2 states, crossing 4 state lines (just to show how easy it is) and turn the money over to the cops I get to walk away? How do you know that CNN didn't notify law enforcement of what they were doing and for what purpose? I don't know that they did or didn't. All I know is the purpose of the documentary was to demonstrate how easy it was and that the purchased firearms were turned over to law enforcement afterwards. === The Feds should have arrested the sellers at the very least, and perhaps a stern warning to the news team might have been in order. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/4/15 5:20 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:08 PM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Unified laws at the federal level already exist. States are not required to enforce federal laws (and therefore 'sanctuary cities'). *That* is what we should change. So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. === Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out west would disagree. Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous. I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized by all states should be the ruling factor. I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary. Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with a gun would ever become a problem. "States rights" is little more than a loaded term that gives cover to those who oppose gay marriage, racial desegregation, and the ability of minorities and students to vote. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:20:07 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. === Do you really believe that what is appropriate for Boston and NYC is also appropriate for Wyoming and Montanna? I'm sure the folks out west would disagree. Didn't say that. I think many of the gun laws in MA are ridiculous. I am suggesting that a set of laws common to all states and recognized by all states should be the ruling factor. I believe in state's rights over federal mandates but some issues have grown to the point where a unified federal approach becomes necessary. Nobody in 1776 thought that traveling from Boston to Delaware with a gun would ever become a problem. === My point is that there are huge differences between states with regard to culture and legal issues. I think it's impossible to come with a "one size fits all" framework. The original role of the Federal government was to facilitate issues between states (llike interstate commerce), and national defense. We as citizens have allowed this creeping federalism to take place. It needs to be slowed down before we all become infected with group think culture. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brampt...chool_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concor...rsity_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...nique_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Edmonton_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_s...t_Hill,_Ottawa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pi...chool_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney...ld%27s_murders They are not immune to such tragedies. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:44:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/4/2015 12:51 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 21:17:39 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/3/2015 8:36 PM, wrote: On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:20:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: We were talking about "illegal" possession. If a state has no permit requirements to own a firearm, then it isn't illegal to have one. If the gun was purchased legally by a legally qualified buyer, why should it be illegal to own? You are talking about making it illegal, ex post facto. That is yet another constitutional violation. Man, has this discussion gone off topic. Maybe my fault for not being more precise in what I've been yapping about. To answer your question (above) ... in some states ... including mine ... you cannot legally purchase, own or have in your possession a gun *unless* you have a state issued permit to own a firearm. Nothing to do with federal law. If you own or have in your possession a firearm but do *not* have a state issued permit, you are subject to arrest, jail and/or fine. Is that clear enough? You can make that case if the gun was purchased after the permit law was passed. You are talking about making an ex post facto law applying to something that was purchased before the law was passed. To the best of my knowledge and based on conversations with other MA gun owners, if you are old enough to have obtained a firearm before the permit to own law took effect (1998, I think), you are still required to obtain a permit to own. You are given some period of time to do so. I've read also that if you inherit a firearm and do not have a permit to own, you have a 60 grace period to get the permit. I suppose if that is what you voted for and you are OK with it ... good for you. I just do not think large areas of the country would go for it and plenty of states would simply opt out. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment until it is ready to pop. Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a "right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government. At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a state issue, like the drug war, will go away. The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th. That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their constitutional powers. (Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun laws were "taxes") |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:49:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/4/2015 1:02 PM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 09:44:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: John, it was a documentary to demonstrate to the public how easy it is to purchase firearms with no records kept. CNN was not playing cop and, as I said, they turned the purchased guns over to law enforcement. So if I rob 3 banks in 2 states, crossing 4 state lines (just to show how easy it is) and turn the money over to the cops I get to walk away? How do you know that CNN didn't notify law enforcement of what they were doing and for what purpose? I don't know that they did or didn't. All I know is the purpose of the documentary was to demonstrate how easy it was and that the purchased firearms were turned over to law enforcement afterwards. Do you really think BATF and 3 pro gun state governments would have condoned this stunt? There are lots of things they might have done but these camera cowboys were just put drumming up a story. I would be shocked if the CNN brass knew. I am sure their lawyers didn't. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 17:26:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
"States rights" is little more than a loaded term that gives cover to those who oppose gay marriage, racial desegregation, and the ability of minorities and students to vote. I never heard that they had repealed the 9th and 10th amendment. I agree the 14th gave the government the ability to legislate RIGHTS that might tend to trump a state law but going to federal prison for possessing something beyond the reach of constitutional powers is not the kind of right they intended to protect. FYI when you do talk to lawyers about this they cite the 14th amendment as the reason why the feds can have drug, gun laws, the 55 MPH speed limit and lots of other things they have no business in. Traditionally if they could not cite the commerce clause, (crossing state lines) the feds could not act unless it was treason or counterfeiting, the only crimes defined in the constitution. Other federal crimes cited federal interest, killing a federal employee, robbing a federally insured bank etc. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 18:28:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: It's not any big surprise that the role of the federal government has grown by necessity since the original concept of 13 basically independent states under the general umbrella of a weak federal alliance was established in 1781 and then became the US Constitution in 1789 replacing the original Articles of Confederation. In those days an average citizen born in Pennsylvania probably never left the state in his/her lifetime and never came across someone from Delaware, Massachusetts or Georgia. Obviously, things have changed since then and it's unrealistic to think the kind of state autonomy envisioned in those days can still work effectively today. The fundamental concept remains but the role of the federal government has had to grow. I don't think it's due to a particular political persuasion. It's more due to necessity. This is far more recent than the powdered wig days. In the late teens 1920s they understood that if you wanted this kind of sweeping law, you needed to amend the constitution. FDR got spanked for creeping federalism in the 30s. It abated until LBJ and particularly Nixon who thought the fed was all powerful (with him holding the strings) Since then the federal government has been out of control. |
Trump Seals His Fate
|
Trump Seals His Fate
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment until it is ready to pop. Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a "right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government. At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a state issue, like the drug war, will go away. The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th. That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their constitutional powers. (Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun laws were "taxes") Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws. === Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable precautions. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment until it is ready to pop. Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a "right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government. At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a state issue, like the drug war, will go away. The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th. That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their constitutional powers. (Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun laws were "taxes") Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws. === Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable precautions. Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking the law when traveling? |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment until it is ready to pop. Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a "right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government. At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a state issue, like the drug war, will go away. The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th. That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their constitutional powers. (Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun laws were "taxes") Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws. That is still more than zero and I imagine there might be some states with laws that are less than things like the AWB or maybe even Brady. I know there is a guy in Idaho manufacturing AR receivers without a FFL and he says they are not intended for interstate shipment, no state law prevents it and basically why is the fed even interested?. I am not sure how that is working out for him. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:33:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment until it is ready to pop. Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a "right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government. At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a state issue, like the drug war, will go away. The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th. That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their constitutional powers. (Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun laws were "taxes") Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws. === Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable precautions. Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking the law when traveling? That has been law since 1986, some Northeastern states are just not honoring it. See 18 USC § 926A Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided , That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console. (Added Pub. L. 99–360, §?1(a), July 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 766 |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:20:22 +0100, RGrew176 wrote:
Califbill;1045991 Wrote: True North wrote:- Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Â*Don't worry about it. Â*In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. - Look at the gun regulation in Canada. Any mass shootings? As Greg says, until we teach people to fight back, they will be lambs to slaughter. Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in the USA but it does happen north of our border. http://tinyurl.com/nvf8lv8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concor...rsity_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...nique_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Edmonton_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings http://tinyurl.com/pukjwcv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pi...chool_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney...ld%27s_murders They are not immune to such tragedies. That post must be a real eye-opener to our Canadian friend who talks about 'down there'. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:33:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment until it is ready to pop. Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a "right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government. At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a state issue, like the drug war, will go away. The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th. That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their constitutional powers. (Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun laws were "taxes") Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws. === Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable precautions. Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking the law when traveling? Federally, it's fixed. State-wise it's not being enforced. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Trump Seals His Fate
RGrew176
Califbill;1045991 Wrote: True North wrote:- Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Â*Don't worry about it. Â*In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. - Look at the gun regulation in Canada. *Any mass shootings? *As Greg says, until we teach people to fight back, they will be lambs to slaughter. "Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in the USA but it does happen north of our border. http://tinyurl.com/nvf8lv8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concor...rsity_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...nique_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Edmonton_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings http://tinyurl.com/pukjwcv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pi...chool_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney...ld%27s_murders They are not immune to such tragedies. -- RGrew176 Just goes to show how 'merican culture is creeping into Canada...so we do have a vested interest in having the US join civilized nations and controlling this cancer. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 08:10:03 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 04:33:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2015 1:27 AM, wrote: On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 01:11:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 10/5/2015 12:25 AM, wrote: On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 14:46:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: So, we are saying the same thing. When it comes to guns, federal law should apply, not 50 different state laws. There is a little problem with the feds having the constitutional authority. We have been pushing the envelope on the 14th amendment until it is ready to pop. Someday someone is going to say, going to federal prison is not a "right", it is over reach by an imperial federal government. At that point lots of federal laws concerning things that should be a state issue, like the drug war, will go away. The fact is that before the LBJ and Nixon administrations, they were not using the 14th amendment as an excuse to violate the 9th and 10th. That amendment protects RIGHTS across state lines. It is not carte blanche for the feds to pass any law they like, beyond their constitutional powers. (Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. Early drug and gun laws were "taxes") Thing is, when it comes to gun control laws, the Federal laws are far more lenient and favor gun owners than many of the state laws. === Perhaps but at least you have the option to stay out of states with onerous laws, or more likely, keep your gun out. That doesn't solve the interstate travel problem but if you're not taking public transportation, that's relatively low risk with reasonable precautions. Why not *fix* it so law abiding gun owners are not technically breaking the law when traveling? Federally, it's fixed. State-wise it's not being enforced. It does beg the question why the DoJ did not enjoin the state from prosecuting that guy who got stranded in Newark with a checked pistol. Oh wait, it was a democratically controlled DoJ. Following the law is optional if they do not agree with the politics. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Mon, 5 Oct 2015 06:02:07 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote: "Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in the USA but it does happen north of our border. Considering that Canada has about 80% of the population of California and a far less diverse population, it is not surprising. |
Trump Seals His Fate
On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 9:02:11 AM UTC-4, True North wrote:
RGrew176 Califbill;1045991 Wrote: True North wrote:- Luddite says. ".OMG. Tell you what Bill. Â*Don't worry about it. Â*In your state you are *not* required to be licensed to purchase or own a gun." All this tells me that nothing will improve down there until the Federal Gov't makes and enforces all gun regulations. Too many cowboy states doing too little. - Look at the gun regulation in Canada. *Any mass shootings? *As Greg says, until we teach people to fight back, they will be lambs to slaughter. "Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in the USA but it does happen north of our border. http://tinyurl.com/nvf8lv8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concor...rsity_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89...nique_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Edmonton_killings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Lortie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Moncton_shootings http://tinyurl.com/pukjwcv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Lake_murders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pi...chool_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney...ld%27s_murders They are not immune to such tragedies. -- RGrew176 Just goes to show how 'merican culture is creeping into Canada...so we do have a vested interest in having the US join civilized nations and controlling this cancer. Without some culture creep, you'd still be using outhouses dumping into the bay. Oh wait, you probably are. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com