quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And to shoot down surrealone's ravings, as a matter of law it is never going to possible to disentangle any firearm from that power.

so the feds have jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce huh?

where does the constitution say that?

The feds have the power to regulate interstate trade and various and sundry SCOTUS rulings have made clear that power is very broad and that the standard of proof that the trade involved is strictly intrastate is actual proof that the trade never crosses state lines.

If SC were to ban the sale of all guns not manufactured in the state, unconstitutional on its face as it would be in violation of the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, and some way was found to guarantee that no gun made in SC ever crossed the border, a foolproof method of causing the gun to blow up if taken across the state line, then you might be able to win a SCOTUS case on the law above. However since that is both legaly and physically impossible the SC law is and will remain unconstitutional.

Really guys what's the burden of filling out a form to buy a gun. I've done it for all of mine and it simply wasn't a big deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan
Because activism doesn't stop with a form.

It is, that simple.

The best thing to come out of this will be further alienation of voters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And to shoot down surrealone's ravings, as a matter of law it is never going to possible to disentangle any firearm from that power.

so the feds have jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce huh?

where does the constitution say that?

The feds have the power to regulate interstate trade and various and sundry SCOTUS rulings have made clear that power is very broad and that the standard of proof that the trade involved is strictly intrastate is actual proof that the trade never crosses state lines.

If SC were to ban the sale of all guns not manufactured in the state, unconstitutional on its face as it would be in violation of the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, and some way was found to guarantee that no gun made in SC ever crossed the border, a foolproof method of causing the gun to blow up if taken across the state line, then you might be able to win a SCOTUS case on the law above. However since that is both legaly and physically impossible the SC law is and will remain unconstitutional.

Really guys what's the burden of filling out a form to buy a gun. I've done it for all of mine and it simply wasn't a big deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So you don't think this law would stand up under the 10th?

How or where does it violate the constitution?

It attempts to prevent the federal government from regulating interstate trade, the power that allows gun registration laws in the first place. Until South Carolina can prove that all the guns for sale in the state are manufactured in the state and are never taken across state lines then teh Federal laws are legal and enforceable no matter what the state thinks.

I would suggest that the SCOTUS ruling on parts of the Brady bill would support the constitutionality of this bill. As it only applies to acts occuring in their state and by officials in their state.

Present precedent is that registration is not an impediment to the right to own a firearm. The D.C. v Heller ruling was quite explicit that registration laws were constitutional as well.
From D.C. v Heller majority opinion's syllabus:

quote:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Like I said the proposed SC law infringes on the federal government's granted power to regulate interstate trade and is therefore very obviously unconstitutional.

And to shoot down surrealone's ravings, as a matter of law it is never going to possible to disentangle any firearm from that power.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm saying that the interstate commerce clause allows the feds to require registration of firearms and the DC v Heller does not affect that and explicitly says it is constitutional to do so. SC has absolutely no say in the matter.

I think registering each sale is very much in the feds interest as it allows tracking of straw sales and illegal trafficing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm saying that the interstate commerce clause allows the feds to require registration of firearms and the DC v Heller does not affect that and explicitly says it is constitutional to do so. SC has absolutely no say in the matter.

I think registering each sale is very much in the feds interest as it allows tracking of straw sales and illegal trafficing.

quote:

From the majorityFull text of case.
The federal government may neither issue directives requiring the states to address particular problems, nor command the states' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
Are you suggesting that the commerce clause also trumps the Second and Tenth amendments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm saying that the interstate commerce clause allows the feds to require registration of firearms and the DC v Heller does not affect that and explicitly says it is constitutional to do so. SC has absolutely no say in the matter.

I think registering each sale is very much in the feds interest as it allows tracking of straw sales and illegal trafficing.

Under that standard for regulating something, could the fed also start regulating which newspaper or websites are allowed across state lines? How about which religious texts or books are sold across statelines?

I suggest that you reread the DC v Heller opinion, as it clearly suggests that the 2nd Amendment protects from infringement by the federal government. Too, we will get an even better understanding of the SCOTUS position when they take up the cases involving Chicago and Oak Park. We have to wait on that one because the 7th Circuit pushed it up the ladder saying that only the SCOTUS could resolve this issue. SCOTUS has taken the case and plans on answering the question of "whether the right to keep and bear arms is protected from infringement not only against the federal government, but also against the states and localities".

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I'm saying that the interstate commerce clause allows the feds to require registration of firearms and the DC v Heller does not affect that and explicitly says it is constitutional to do so. SC has absolutely no say in the matter.

I think registering each sale is very much in the feds interest as it allows tracking of straw sales and illegal trafficing.

Under that standard for regulating something, could the fed also start regulating which newspaper or websites are allowed across state lines? How about which religious texts or books are sold across statelines?

I suggest that you reread the DC v Heller opinion, as it clearly suggests that the 2nd Amendment protects from infringement by the federal government. Too, we will get an even better understanding of the SCOTUS position when they take up the cases involving Chicago and Oak Park. We have to wait on that one because the 7th Circuit pushed it up the ladder saying that only the SCOTUS could resolve this issue. SCOTUS has taken the case and plans on answering the question of "whether the right to keep and bear arms is protected from infringement not only against the federal government, but also against the states and localities".

I've already quoted the DC v Heller ruling where it says registration laws are constitutional. What more do you want?

As to the rest, the feds do regulate what newspapers are sold across state lines, religious texts too. They enforce all sorts of safety standards on the physical objects for instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
YOu dont mind citing that quote there do ya ken?   

I mean who am I to question a bunch a scrotuses, but I really do not recall where the constitution was amended to thou shalt not infringe EXCEPT for licensing and registration?

Maybe you can help us verify what they base that little morsel of extraconstitutional presumption on?

quote:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
YOu dont mind citing that quote there do ya ken?   

I mean who am I to question a bunch a scrotuses, but I really do not recall where the constitution was amended to thou shalt not infringe EXCEPT for licensing and registration?

Maybe you can help us verify what they base that little morsel of extraconstitutional presumption on?

I already posted it but here it is again
From D.C. v Heller majority opinion's syllabus:

quote:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

See the bold text?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
YOu dont mind citing that quote there do ya ken?   

I mean who am I to question a bunch a scrotuses, but I really do not recall where the constitution was amended to thou shalt not infringe EXCEPT for licensing and registration?

Maybe you can help us verify what they base that little morsel of extraconstitutional presumption on?

I already posted it but here it is again
From D.C. v Heller majority opinion's syllabus:

quote:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

See the bold text?

But but but but but Ken..........

Private parties do not purchase arms for commercial use.

You know just like driving and travelling?  Most people dont get a car for commercial driving either.

Do you understand commercial Ken?