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.

On 10/4/2015 5:54 PM, wrote:
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.


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.

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2015 5:54 PM, wrote:
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.


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.




Maybe had to grow, but not be invasive growth as shown.

Well, it does, unfortunately, happen there. Not to the degree as here in the USA but it does happen north of our border.

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.

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.

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")

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.

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.

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.

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.