pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Where does it say...
#1
Can someone please educate me on where it says that the Federal Government is allowed to impose National laws on States and the States have no control over it.
NRA Life Member, NRA Certified Instructor:  HFS, Pistol, Rifle, PPIH,PPOH
Suarez Combat Arms Instructor School
Admit nothing.  Deny everything. Demand proof.
If we lie to the government, it's a crime. If the government lies to the people, it's called politics.
Paying for welfare is slavery.
Reply
#2
Well there used to be this thing called The Constitution...but people forgot about it so it's no longer useful.
"What you're feeling now ain't the worst pain. The worst thing is not feeling the hurt anymore."
Reply
#3
Not sure it does, but what the Fed does do is use blackmail, "take our suggestions or we cut your funds" ...
Reply
#4
In most cases it’s the court upheld abuse of the commerce clause.

Congress has the power to:

Quote:To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.

The intention of the clause was to give congress the power to keep commerce “regular”
between the states and not allow states to impose tariffs that could detrimentally effect the commerce of another state.

In 1940 an Ohio farmer (Roscoe Filburn) was fined by the feds for growing too much wheat on his property, which was never sold or traded. The SCOTUS upheld the fine
under the commerce clause. The argument being if others over produced wheat and consumed it that could effect the price of wheat.

We’ve been fucked ever since this ruling
This power has now been twisted over the past 75 years to include anything which can potentially cross state lines regardless of whether it does or not.
This has been the single most cause for congress to control every aspect of our lives.
Between this and the 16A allowing the federal income tax the government has become an out of control monster.
Welcome to ObamaNation part deuxUtg
Reply
#5
^^^ this. Isn't this how they went after Miller in US vs Miller?

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#6
If the gun grabbers push for a constitutional amendment, can we push to repeal the commerce clause - and all legislation that was passed under its "authority"?
Reply
#7
JustinHEMI;63136 Wrote:^^^ this. Isn't this how they went after Miller in US vs Miller?

Justin
Yup
They also argued that the NFA was a lawful tax via the 16ARolleyes
Welcome to ObamaNation part deuxUtg
Reply
#8
rmagill;63153 Wrote:If the gun grabbers push for a constitutional amendment, can we push to repeal the commerce clause - and all legislation that was passed under its "authority"?

I would be for it or at least a clarification as to the extent it can be applied.

This is the push back we are seeing with Montana and other states passing laws allowing full auto provided the firearm is manufactured and stays within the state.

On a side note I can only hope the grabbers push to amend the 2A.
They will lose the argument if we have a national dicussion what the 2A really is, and what it was intended for. It would place all the attention on the true agenda.
Welcome to ObamaNation part deuxUtg
Reply
#9
God's Country;63207 Wrote:
rmagill;63153 Wrote:If the gun grabbers push for a constitutional amendment, can we push to repeal the commerce clause - and all legislation that was passed under its "authority"?

I would be for it or at least a clarification as to the extent it can be applied.

This is the push back we are seeing with Montana and other states passing laws allowing full auto provided the firearm is manufactured and stays within the state.

On a side note I can only hope the grabbers push to amend the 2A.
They will lose the argument if we have a national dicussion what the 2A really is, and what it was intended for. It would place all the attention on the true agenda.

Yes, as long as the Fudds woke up and those who understand that the 2A is to preserve the people's freedom, not the .gov's aren't made out to be tin-foil-hat-wearing-loons.
Reply
#10
rmagill;63227 Wrote:
God's Country;63207 Wrote:I would be for it or at least a clarification as to the extent it can be applied.

This is the push back we are seeing with Montana and other states passing laws allowing full auto provided the firearm is manufactured and stays within the state.

On a side note I can only hope the grabbers push to amend the 2A.
They will lose the argument if we have a national dicussion what the 2A really is, and what it was intended for. It would place all the attention on the true agenda.

Yes, as long as the Fudds woke up and those who understand that the 2A is to preserve the people's freedom, not the .gov's aren't made out to be tin-foil-hat-wearing-loons.

I truly believe that if we as a nation forced the argument to be about the true meaning of the 2A then only two camps could emerge. The one's that hate it and don't care, and the rest of us. This is why antis, and sadly pro 2A orgs, splinter the argument. To make an expedient point that resonates with certain groups. Fudds will either realize they were wrong or will move to the other camp where they belonged all along. IMO one of the worse things we let politically motivated people do to any of us is pander to our emotions.
The 2A exists not to protect the expressions of it we like, but the expressions of it we fear, just like the 1A.

I want to see this argument....I could be madWink
Welcome to ObamaNation part deuxUtg
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.