question about the idaho firearm freedom act

[civilian75]

We don't need 40 states pass laws that don't mean anything. We need Congress members from 40 states to make changes to NFA so that law-abiding citizens can purchase new machineguns again, etc.

It is about taking a step in the right direction. As a voter, I tend to vote for pro-2A candidates. If someone is part of a state legislature, and this is what they can do, so be it. It could catch on like wild fire. But it won't if nobody lites the fire, and the rest don't fan it.

 

[rur862]

My abilities at logic stall here. I can't add anything beyond what I already said - Constitution says Supreme Court is to decide what's Constitutional



Not only politics, but also to their personal perverted views. But that's how our country works. We can change that if we like - it's called Constitutional Amendment Process.



It exactly becomes law. I'd love to see you list "many" times of decisions being reversed. I believe there have been less than 10 times in 200+ years that Supreme Court would rule to overturn its own decision. Just see the dialogue I posted above, and better yet read the entire Gura's oral argument in McDonald case, as he speaks there exactly of what you have a problem with - P&I.



Federal government has authority to regulate interstate commerce. That's what Commerce Clause grants them. Firearms are traded across state lines, thus firearms trade is within Federal authority - they can do whatever they want. Further, in that case Gonzales v. Raich Supreme Court found that by not participating in interstate commerce (growing weed in your backyard for personal consumption) you are affecting interstate commerce... thus you are subject to federal regulation It's retarted, I know, but it is the law.

Well as long as you're willing to admit it retarded, that what counts

I've just always hated the fact that a small clause in the Constitution originally intended to reduce rivalry among the states concerning commercial ports is being used to justify an all-powerful Federal gvm't.

Guess I'm just a sore loser

 

[fd15k]

I'd love to see you list "many" times of decisions being reversed.

Found a nice summary :

On a few occasions, the Court resolved a previous tie vote by reversing the lower court.

Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. US, 350 US 61 (1955) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed, case remanded on rehearing.

Haliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 US 1 (1946) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed on rehearing.

Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 US 118 (1941) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed on rehearing.



Cases have occasionally been reheard and their original decision reversed due to the Court's error.

City of New York, 147 US 72 (1893) Decision reversed because the wrong rules for supervision of city inspectors had been applied.

City of New Orleans v. Warner, 176 US 385 (1899) Decision reversed because the Court overlooked the fact that a bill for services had been presented to the Respondent.

Whitney v. California, 274 US 357 (1927) Originally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Court had been unable to find records documenting the case contained a preserved federal question.



A few cases have been reversed due to new evidence being presented, changes to federal laws, or a convincing argument made against the first decision.

Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to the US District Court for the District of Colorado for disposition.

Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 US 769 (1942) Originally affirmed a judgment sustaining an injunction, reversed on reconsideration.

Brenham v. German American Bank, 144 US 549 (1892) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to lower court.



The Court has also reversed its decision to deny certiorari for various reasons, although these cases would be categorized differently because there was only one set of arguments.

Forgett v. US, 390 US 203 (1968) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.

Black v. US, 385 US 26 (1966) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.

US v. Ohio Power Co., 353 US 98 (1957) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.



The Court also agreed to rehear two cases under original jurisdiction (disputes between the states) and modified (but did not reverse) their original judgment.

Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 US 419 (1922) Revised determination about how much water Colorado could divert from the Colorado River.

Arizona v. California, 530 US 392 (2000) Revised water apportionment from the Colorado River, case initiated in 1952 and thereafter modified in 1955, 1964, 1979, 1984 and 2000.

Can the US Supreme Court reverse its own decisions

 

[rur862]

I was talking more about the Brown vs. Board of Education/ Plessy vs. Ferguson style reversals, where it is not actually the same case but a different court comes out with a different decision in a similar case.

 

[fd15k]

It is about doing something in the right direction. As a voter, I vote tend to vote for pro-2A. If someone is part of a state legislature, and this is what they can do, so be it. I could catch on like wild fire. But it won't if nobody lites the fire, and the rest don't fan it.

Let me put it this way for you... how many states that passed similar laws have part-time (unpaid) legislatures ?

 

[fd15k]

I was talking more about the Brown vs. Board of Education/ Plessy vs. Ferguson style reversals, where it is not actually the same case but a different court comes out with a different decision in a similar case.

But how frequent are those ? In McDonald case only justice Thomas was in favor of overturning Slaughterhouses and restoring 14th Amendment to its full power. Scalia, most favored judge by pro-gun movement, instead made fun of Gura's attempt to dig in that direction. NRA agreed with Scalia as well.

 

[rur862]

True, just trying to say that they do happen, and that they can be monumental.

 

[fd15k]

True, just trying to say that they do happen, and that they can be monumental.

Yeah, I will be something like this :

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Shifting the conversation away from the Second Amendment, where on earth does it say in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that the Federal government can mandate people, who want to sell firearms for a living, get an FFL?

Remember that the ATF was originally a Revenue agency of the Treasury Department. The use of an FFL is, I believe, argued under "taxing" power, as is the Tax Stamp for AOW, SBR, SBS, and select and full auto weapons.

 

[fd15k]

Remember that the ATF was originally a Revenue agency of the Treasury Department. The use of an FFL is, I believe, argued under "taxing" power, as is the Tax Stamp for AOW, SBR, SBS, and select and full auto weapons.

I think you're confusing a couple of things. NFA was argued to have a taxation purpose, and in one case (10th Circuit, I think) a federal judge even invalidated it due to the fact that once the registration of machineguns is closed, taxation no longer can be performed on items that can't be acquired, thus entire thing is invalid. But in regards to FFL, here is a bit of info :

The Federal Firearms License was established to implement the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. The FFA required all manufacturers and dealers of firearms who ship or receive firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce to have a license, and forbade them from transferring any firearm or most ammunition to any person interstate unless certain conditions were met.[4] As a practical matter, this did not affect the interstate commerce in firearms or ammunition. It was with the adoption of the Gun Control Act in 1968, which repealed most of the FFA, that the lawful interstate trade of firearms was limited almost entirely to persons holding a Federal Firearms License.

Federal Firearms License - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically what I said earlier - expansion of Commerce Clause is what allowed them to regulate intrastate firearms operations.

Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Why be so negative? Surely in this time when weak men say nothing and bad men say only what the lowest common denominator wish to hear the Idaho state legislature is standing for good and freedom which I'll gladly spend my tax money on.

Holy Cow DEADTIME! That is sig line material right there.

Well said!

 

[bunkerguy]

I think you're confusing a couple of things. NFA was argued to have a taxation purpose, and in one case (10th Circuit, I think) a federal judge even invalidated it due to the fact that once the registration of machineguns is closed, taxation no longer can be performed on items that can't be acquired, thus entire thing is invalid. But in regards to FFL, here is a bit of info :

The Federal Firearms License was established to implement the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. The FFA required all manufacturers and dealers of firearms who ship or receive firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce to have a license, and forbade them from transferring any firearm or most ammunition to any person interstate unless certain conditions were met.[4] As a practical matter, this did not affect the interstate commerce in firearms or ammunition. It was with the adoption of the Gun Control Act in 1968, which repealed most of the FFA, that the lawful interstate trade of firearms was limited almost entirely to persons holding a Federal Firearms License.

Federal Firearms License - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically what I said earlier - expansion of Commerce Clause is what allowed them to regulate intrastate firearms operations.

Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.

so if that is the case, why is the Hughes Amendment still "law"(even though it did not pass but was still paper cliped in the bill)

 

[fd15k]

so if that is the case, why is the Hughes Amendment still "law"(even though it did not pass but was still paper cliped in the bill)

Because if one repeats something many enough times, he believes it is true I don't know really, when our guys discovered the video of the actual roll call of 1986 voting, supposedly some senators and/or representatives were put into the loop, but I haven't heard of any opinion on the subject since then (over a year now).

 

[bunkerguy]

Because if one repeats something many enough times, he believes it is true I don't know really, when our guys discovered the video of the actual roll call of 1986 voting, supposedly some senators and/or representatives were put into the loop, but I haven't heard of any opinion on the subject since then (over a year now).

some should put a repeal bill into a bill one of these days, i bet i would just slid past the parasites in congress.

 

[fd15k]

some should put a repeal bill into a bill one of these days, i bet i would just slid past the parasites in congress.

That's exactly what I said in this thread, and some said it's better to push "do nothing" bills through state legislatures in a demonstration of symbolic patriotism and support for "state rights". Go figure...

 

[bunkerguy]

Because if one repeats something many enough times, he believes it is true I don't know really, when our guys discovered the video of the actual roll call of 1986 voting, supposedly some senators and/or representatives were put into the loop, but I haven't heard of any opinion on the subject since then (over a year now).

it is a shame, if some had a thompson and a few drums they could have really helped this nation.