- Messages
- 67
- Reactions
- 0
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I feel bad for the first person who decides to be a test case for one of these laws.
I'm always happy to support people that want to be the test case. As for myself I'll just watch from the sidelines.
I found this interesting though:
"The law also requires the state to defend any Alaskan who is "prosecuted by the federal government under their authority to regulate interstate commerce."
Do any of those states other than montana and wyoming manufacture any firearms.
That's pretty cool, but I think that a federal public defender would be able to plead for leniency at sentencing just as well as whoever the state hires...
Every legal analysis I've seen, even from pro-2A lawyers, shows that the various Firearm Freedom Acts will not stand up in court. That's why the NRA is not supporting it, and I was surprised to see Alan Gottlieb of SAF quoted as a supporter.
Exactly. Even though libertarians and other "states' rights" advocates disapprove of it, the relevant law is straightforward and well-settled. Despite its age, this case represents the law of the land. Congress can regulate any production, purchase, or sale of goods that are traded in interstate commerce. (In the case of firearms, Congress' power is still limited by the 2nd Amendment - but we are unlikely to ever see a court decision prohibiting regulations like the ones that currently exist.)
Read it again. The crux of what they're saying is that they're not traded in interstate commerce. What's made in Alaska, traded in Alaska, and used in Alaska is none of your business so back off.
That's what I read anyway.
States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up. I don't like this, but it is the truth. The Feds decided a long time ago that if states wanted money for highways, they'd have to toe the line on the 21 years old drinking age. All of the states fell in line -- it was that, or fund highways on their own. Same will happen with gun rights.
States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up.
Another is that these are just politicians casting for votes and cynically raising the hopes folks who don't understand the relationship between state and federal government.
States can declare what they want to declare -- when push comes to shove, the Feds will decide what's up. I don't like this, but it is the truth. The Feds decided a long time ago that if states wanted money for highways, they'd have to toe the line on the 21 years old drinking age. All of the states fell in line -- it was that, or fund highways on their own. Same will happen with gun rights.
+1
In a way it reminds me of tax protestors and their wild theories on admiralty flags and sovereign citizenship. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Just think if all that energy could be harnessed for something useful...
It is to the extent that people believe that the preemption statutes are currently valid. Otherwise, there's a big difference: the states' rights/antifederalist view has plenty of supporters among scholars and even federal judges. It's still very much a minority view, and is likely to remain so, but it's not a made-up conspiracy theory.
Even though I'm comfortable (in many respects, but not all) with a strong federal government, I think that even the most ardent supporters of federal power would not like a USA where nobody tried to rein it in occasionally. The "sound and fury" is a big part of what balances the scales out at least a little bit.