quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Part of the problem is that the courts have ruled both in favor of states rights when it suits them and against states rights too.

United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, declared a federal creation of 'Gun Free Zones' unconstitutional in violation of states rights.

HERE

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

HERE

The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned. "

On another front courts ruled that if you grow food on your own property even for your own consumption, you come under their jurisdiction for interstate commerce. Their "reasoning" ? You are growing something that someone in another state COULD HAVE sold you. Therefore you are involved in interstate commerce.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned. "

On another front courts ruled that if you grow food on your own property even for your own consumption, you come under their jurisdiction for interstate commerce. Their "reasoning" ? You are growing something that someone in another state COULD HAVE sold you. Therefore you are involved in interstate commerce.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned. "

On another front courts ruled that if you grow food on your own property even for your own consumption, you come under their jurisdiction for interstate commerce. Their "reasoning" ? You are growing something that someone in another state COULD HAVE sold you. Therefore you are involved in interstate commerce.

T^T

A better explination is that the fact that the state allows it doesn't negate the Federal law.
If California legalized open carry of full auto Tommy Guns, even for convicted felons on a pass from Arkham, would it negate the Federal laws on the subject?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned. "

On another front courts ruled that if you grow food on your own property even for your own consumption, you come under their jurisdiction for interstate commerce. Their "reasoning" ? You are growing something that someone in another state COULD HAVE sold you. Therefore you are involved in interstate commerce.

T^T

A better explination is that the fact that the state allows it doesn't negate the Federal law.
If California legalized open carry of full auto Tommy Guns, even for convicted felons on a pass from Arkham, would it negate the Federal laws on the subject?

Guns much more reasonably fall under the interstate commerce jurisdiction especially given that so many are being purchased...interstate.

Pot does not and even food is very specious. The constitution without specifying anything with respect to any power over food or pot production, means the 10th amend. should protect that state right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned. "

On another front courts ruled that if you grow food on your own property even for your own consumption, you come under their jurisdiction for interstate commerce. Their "reasoning" ? You are growing something that someone in another state COULD HAVE sold you. Therefore you are involved in interstate commerce.

T^T

A better explination is that the fact that the state allows it doesn't negate the Federal law.
If California legalized open carry of full auto Tommy Guns, even for convicted felons on a pass from Arkham, would it negate the Federal laws on the subject?

Guns much more reasonably fall under the interstate commerce jurisdiction especially given that so many are being purchased...interstate.

Pot does not and even food is very specious. The constitution without specifying anything with respect to any power over food or pot production, means the 10th amend. should protect that state right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned. "

On another front courts ruled that if you grow food on your own property even for your own consumption, you come under their jurisdiction for interstate commerce. Their "reasoning" ? You are growing something that someone in another state COULD HAVE sold you. Therefore you are involved in interstate commerce.

T^T

A better explination is that the fact that the state allows it doesn't negate the Federal law.
If California legalized open carry of full auto Tommy Guns, even for convicted felons on a pass from Arkham, would it negate the Federal laws on the subject?

Guns much more reasonably fall under the interstate commerce jurisdiction especially given that so many are being purchased...interstate.

Pot does not and even food is very specious. The constitution without specifying anything with respect to any power over food or pot production, means the 10th amend. should protect that state right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Part of the problem is that the courts have ruled both in favor of states rights when it suits them and against states rights too.

United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, declared a federal creation of 'Gun Free Zones' unconstitutional in violation of states rights.

HERE

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the US Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

HERE

The court told the world flat out that the commerce clause comes in very handy when you need it and the 10th amend....be damned.

As I said, the commerce clause is the primary weapon to undermine the 10th.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

Ban guns, ban region, ban states rights! The Constitution was a more perfect document without this so called Bill of Rights. A bunch of stupid southerners insisted on it back then, and look what we have now...a bunch of stupid southerners defending it...

Yup, that bill of rights screwed things up royally, just think, government limits on speech, religion, and being able to arrest and hold people in jail without formal charges, kick your door in to search for no good reason than it was something to do.

The problem is not with guns, or even the gun laws, since the current gun regulations WOULD work if they were actually able to be enforced the way they are written.

However, due to the fact that law enforcement agencies below the federal level are not forced to put protection orders or indictments for felonies (both of which would prevent someone from purchasing a gun) into the National Criminal database, there is no way the back ground checks can work.

The fact that there are a litany of mental disorders that, under the laws as written, bar people from purchasing firearms, you would think that it would be mandatory for mental health professionals to report patients with such disorders to the proper agencies, but thanks to privacy laws, that is not the case.

For that matter, considering the lethal uses of a gun, you would think that it would be mandatory to report one stolen or missing, but nope.

Nor is there any regulation about storage of a firearm.

And before the extremist gun owners start screaming, consider this.

Would you store poisons where a child can get to them?
Would you put a five gallon gas can near a fireplace?

There are irresponsible people that leave guns and ammo where a kid can get to them. Accidental deaths top the list for gun related deaths.

Then there is the argument that the gun needs to be ready in case someone breaks in to the home.

Got news for you, IF a person can break in faster than you can get to a gun that is placed for ready access for you but not everyone else, then you have a bigger problem than you think.

Hell, if you live in a place where a gun is necessary to protect yourself in your own home, you should move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

Ban guns, ban region, ban states rights! The Constitution was a more perfect document without this so called Bill of Rights. A bunch of stupid southerners insisted on it back then, and look what we have now...a bunch of stupid southerners defending it...

I do get that to many, the bill of rights is almost sacred, and isn't going away. But why must the well regulated militia part of the 2nd amendment be ignored? I could see a need for a militia that is below the national guard in terms of when they would be called to duty, but may only be necessary if for whatever reason a huge country like China decided to invade us and convince Mexico and Canada to be on their side, far fetched, but possible. Why shouldn't gun owners in this militia be registered so they can be called up in such a scenario, and also given regular fit for duty psych exams?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyDemura

Ban guns, ban region, ban states rights! The Constitution was a more perfect document without this so called Bill of Rights. A bunch of stupid southerners insisted on it back then, and look what we have now...a bunch of stupid southerners defending it...

Yup, that bill of rights screwed things up royally, just think, government limits on speech, religion, and being able to arrest and hold people in jail without formal charges, kick your door in to search for no good reason than it was something to do.

The problem is not with guns, or even the gun laws, since the current gun regulations WOULD work if they were actually able to be enforced the way they are written.

However, due to the fact that law enforcement agencies below the federal level are not forced to put protection orders or indictments for felonies (both of which would prevent someone from purchasing a gun) into the National Criminal database, there is no way the back ground checks can work.

The fact that there are a litany of mental disorders that, under the laws as written, bar people from purchasing firearms, you would think that it would be mandatory for mental health professionals to report patients with such disorders to the proper agencies, but thanks to privacy laws, that is not the case.

For that matter, considering the lethal uses of a gun, you would think that it would be mandatory to report one stolen or missing, but nope.

Nor is there any regulation about storage of a firearm.

And before the extremist gun owners start screaming, consider this.

Would you store poisons where a child can get to them?
Would you put a five gallon gas can near a fireplace?

There are irresponsible people that leave guns and ammo where a kid can get to them. Accidental deaths top the list for gun related deaths.

Then there is the argument that the gun needs to be ready in case someone breaks in to the home.

Got news for you, IF a person can break in faster than you can get to a gun that is placed for ready access for you but not everyone else, then you have a bigger problem than you think.

Hell, if you live in a place where a gun is necessary to protect yourself in your own home, you should move.

I do get that to many, the bill of rights is almost sacred, and isn't going away. But why must the well regulated militia part of the 2nd amendment be ignored? I could see a need for a militia that is below the national guard in terms of when they would be called to duty, but may only be necessary if for whatever reason a huge country like China decided to invade us and convince Mexico and Canada to be on their side, far fetched, but possible. Why shouldn't gun owners in this militia be registered so they can be called up in such a scenario, and also given regular fit for duty psych exams?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
A By Federal every able bodied man is in the militia.
B It says the right of the people, not the privilage of militia members.
C They should be rigistered so that the invader will know who to round up?
D Registration is a precurser to confiscation, see CA and NY.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

And Connecticut Bama.

But to the question about the militia, note the placement of the comma.

Let me illustrate the usage of the English language.

"Since I need to get to work, I need to get a car".

Note how the comma separates the two parts of the statement and means that the first part is the precursor to the second part. The need must be fullfilled.

Also to those who do not know, it does NOT say "The right of the militia" or "The right of the government" or "The right of the police", it says the right of the PEOPLE.

I swear if these people don't stop trying to take away our guns we should start shooting them. And then laugh because there is not a fucking thing they can do about it and it is their own goddamn fault.

You don't want a gun don't fucking buy one. (not you personally)

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

And Connecticut Bama.

But to the question about the militia, note the placement of the comma.

Let me illustrate the usage of the English language.

"Since I need to get to work, I need to get a car".

Note how the comma separates the two parts of the statement and means that the first part is the precursor to the second part. The need must be fullfilled.

Also to those who do not know, it does NOT say "The right of the militia" or "The right of the government" or "The right of the police", it says the right of the PEOPLE.

I swear if these people don't stop trying to take away our guns we should start shooting them. And then laugh because there is not a fucking thing they can do about it and it is their own goddamn fault.

You don't want a gun don't fucking buy one. (not you personally)

T^T