Staff Member
- Messages
- 9,483
- Reactions
- 21,450
This is a federal bill, not an Oregon bill.
Yup. AFAIK no one is backing it either...
So, so far its just a "throw poop" at the wall to see what sticks kinda deal.
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.
This is a federal bill, not an Oregon bill.
Would never make it past SCOTUS IMO.
the bill was created by some fudd in Texas
Would never make it past SCOTUS IMO.
Keep in mind that the Ninth Circuit is no longer, thanks to Trump, the anti gun establishment it used to be. The Ninth threw out California's ten round magazine limit. The ruling is currently on ice while the entire Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decides whether to rehear it.
What case are you citing?Are you sure about that ? If you ask most people if the government could fine you for raising your grain to feed your own animals they would say no. The government did that very thing to a farmer stating he was negatively impacting interstate commerce , and the SCOTUS upheld it was constitutional because the govt can regulate interstate commerce ... It did not matter that the grain ever left the farmer's property and was never sold.
In fact the case was used to expand the powers of government and many of the powers government now abuses were made possible because of that ruling.
Never mind above....found it,
Wickard v. Filburn 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
After Lopez the court also went on to limit this power in Morrison (I have not read this case yet). Interesting notion in the dissent opinion in Lopez was: 'the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce. In his dissent, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argued that Congress could regulate handgun possession under the Commerce Clause because gun violence could have a significant effect on interstate commerce by impairing educational environments.'Yep and the court did rule and I quote
"The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers like Filburn would become substantial. Therefore the Court decided that the federal government could regulate Filburn's production. "
HR 127 is an incredibly poorly written resolution and will go nowhere. Based on the full text, "AR's" would be classified as military type weapons, but a mini-14 would not?
Text - H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act
Text for H.R.127 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Actwww.congress.gov
Just to play devils advocate, the OP one page summary is a fairly misleading overview of HR 127. (Regardless, it's a terrible proposal)
After Lopez the court also went on to limit this power in Morrison (I have not read this case yet). Interesting notion in the dissent opinion in Lopez was: 'the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was amended to specifically only apply to guns that had been moved via interstate commerce. In his dissent, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer argued that Congress could regulate handgun possession under the Commerce Clause because gun violence could have a significant effect on interstate commerce by impairing educational environments.'
Since most hand guns travel over state lines from manufacturer to point of sale - how did this not apply under the given criteria.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad it doesn't/didn't.