Nevada Shooters

Go Back   Nevada Shooters > Main Room > Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms


Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms The place to discuss all gun rights issues, pro-gun/anti-gun legislation and general Second Amendment topics. All other topics will be locked.

User Tag List

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-11-2017, 10:55 AM   #71
Beware of Cat
Felid'Maximus's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 3,093
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

Originally Posted by Ron_O View Post
The 10th Amendment Center makes some valid points concerning the fed involvement in its attempts at this Bill.
Under 18 USC 926A the federal government already requires all states to recognize transportation of firearms across state lines. Based on that interpretation, can Congress therefore restrict the transportation of firearms across state lines?

Oh wait... they already do, at least for commercial sales, and many of those restrictions predate that one good law. It's called the Gun Control Act.

In fact, Congress goes much farther and bans carrying of guns in school zones with the gun free school zones act.

Congress already has a federal registry of certain particularly notorious guns they put in the "National Firearms Act". And Congress has outright banned some of those guns made after an arbitrary date.

Congress currently has the power to ban any gun it wants and already has numerous laws of this nature.

Fearing that Congress could pass restrictive laws against people if they pass restrictive laws against states isn't really a valid fear because Congress has no bounds already.

One of the most egregious laws is the one against "armor piercing ammunition" intended to render civilian arms ineffective in an era of increasing armor performance.

I am unaware of anything in this bill that creates any sort of national carry permit.

And even if it did, that is hardly worse than what we put up with on a regular basis anyway.

Folks are happy to get on state registries with their state CCW anyway so what is registering with the federal government? Do you think your state wouldn't turn you into the Feds if the Feds asked nicely? They would.

Every gun owner who ever purchased a gun on a 4473, the government either already has your name or is one regulation away from telling the dealers to turn all those 4473 in.

The "Congress could restrict guns" ship sailed a long time ago. Congress DOES restrict guns and pretty much nothing that eases our individual restrictions as a citizen under state law is going to set any precedent that allows them to restrict guns any more than they already do... which is to quite an extreme level when you consider Federal Law already essentially bans carrying firearms in practically all urban areas (1000 foot radius bubble from border of every school) and has laws in place for firearm obsolescence.

If the Democrats had a supermajority, D.C. vs Heller is the only thing that would stop them from banning handguns and repeating firearms altogether. I seem to recall a recent federal election where a favorite candidate for many basically she didn't believe in an America where people carry guns in the supermarket. Had the election swung the other way our rights would hang by a thread, and that's without any precedent set by the federal government infringing on state rights in a pro-gun way with national carry. I appreciate the dedication towards the tenth amendment by those who do not wish the federal government to ever intervene in state matters but it is a rather idealistic approach. For all practicality we are no longer a Union of several states with a federal government of limited power, but instead we live in a system with a federal government with unlimited power. By democratic whims the majority will take away the rights of the minority and the tenth amendment and second amendment will not stand in their way. I can understand the perspective that for an ideal strictly federalist system each state should be independent of the federal government when it comes to criminal code, but certainly any notion that our sudden reverence for state rights will cause gun control proponents to reciprocate is misfounded. State rights is only mentioned by any anti-gun people now out of sheer convenience, but none of those same people are talking about state rights when they talk about renewing an Assault Weapons Ban after every single mass shooting.

This sort of law will affect state policies towards carry more indirectly than directly, in that people convicted in local courts will be able to have their convictions overturned on appeal. Similar to how 18 USC 926 A has resulted in some people having their convictions overturned, but only upon appeal to federal court. 18 USC 926 A has undoubtedly reduced local prosecution as well, but it is not as if the FBI swoops in and arrests all local cops that arrest someone on a gun charge. Rather, some poor guy spends months or years in jail and court proving that he should not have to spend many years in prison or as a second class citizen (with loss of voting rights etc.) because federal law gives him an out.

In my opinion, federal courts overturning local convictions of people arrested for carrying guns from out of state is no more is a step towards federal gun confiscation than federal courts overturning convictions from searching motorists from other states without cause is a step towards establishing random checkpoints on the highway for TSA to search automobiles.

The federal courts have also ruled against the states for violating the first amendment freedom of expression. If the courts will do that, it seems funny to say that the federal government should be more restrained when it comes to the 2nd amendment. People generally seem okay with allowing the 1st to limit the power of the states, especially in light of the 14th amendment... yet unlike the 1st amendment, which specifically proposes a limit on Congress, the 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and thus arguably applies against the states even prior to the 14th amendment. Every state ratified the U.S. constitution bill of rights so what are these states doing infringing on the 2nd Amendment? I am okay with the federal government nullifying these laws by overturning convictions.

Ideally even requiring a permit at all from any state should be unconstitutional. Perhaps states that infringe upon the right to bear arms should be forced to leave the union by vote from the other states if they want to have any gun bans at all. If they violate the right to bear arms after ratifying an agreement that it should not be violated as part of joining the union, is that not in a way like violating a contract?
Felid'Maximus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2018, 09:05 AM   #72
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Self-Extracted
Posts: 1,561
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)

The House sponsor of this bill is meeting with POTUS next week to discuss it. Currently stalled in the Senate. Senate wants to change the text to require that you have a CCW that's issued by your OWN state rather than another. If that's the case then restricted 'may issue' states are screwed.

Good quality video:
Ron_O is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:03 AM.

Ammo Supply Warehouse New Frontier Armory
Fight Focused Concepts GUNSMITHING
by Deus Ex Machina
Precision Armory

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.