Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We the people long ago, have told "they the government" to not infringe on our weapons of any kind.
I want to ignore the 2nd amendment for a second. I'm basically asking a states vs federal rights question, and do not want it to turn into a 2nd amendment vs gun control argument.
I want to ignore the 2nd amendment for a second. I'm basically asking a states vs federal rights question, and do not want it to turn into a 2nd amendment vs gun control argument.
Why? It illustrates the argument, and in fact, is wholly pertinent to the discussion of the limits of federal powers and the unlimited powers of the people.
I want to ignore the 2nd amendment for a second. I'm basically asking a states vs federal rights question, and do not want it to turn into a 2nd amendment vs gun control argument.
LOL, you want to ignore the facts and argue some vague concept? There is no ignoring the Constitution and picking up other arguments when it comes to Constitutional rights.
If that is in fact true, under what premise was it found to be constitutional.
When the govt lawyers saw there was no one from the defense present in the courtroom, they recited a number of lies about what the 2nd amendment meant, such as "it only protects weapons similar to military weapons in common use" and "short-barrelled shotguns are not used in the military of the time" and "the 2nd only protect weapons owned by people in a militia".
(Yes, that's where those lies originated. They are still with us today, and ar only gradually getting smacked down.)
And the Justices wrote essentially that, since no one refuted them in the courtroom that day, and the Justices didn't personally know them to have been previously judged to be clear lies, they had to accept them, and were ruling accordingly.
I'm just wondering if anyone could shed light on this. How is it constitutional for the federal government to supersede state law in regards to firearm regulation? Was there a Supreme Court case, or some other statue that gives the federal government the power to do so? They obviously got a ban passed on the federal level that held firm until it expired, so I guess that they have he legal right to do so, but how?
That ban was more to do with importing guns from foreign countries than to deal in states business. The feds can pull that stunt off pretty easy. Obama stopped us from getting back our own Garands from the lend lease to S Korea. The little SOB stepped on our toes for that.
It might be some slick lawyers found a way to import these guns anyway. I have been seeing some of what i think are them for sale in local gun stores.
Biden's 1994 Gun ban didn't ban real guns. He knows so little about real guns it was easy to go right around his so called ban. i bought AK-47 style guns in military form as semi auto during that entire 10 year long ban.
Anyone that wanted that type of guns could. And they did to the point of that gun type about ran out of being sold because there were all sold. You can still get these in more civilian forms still.
Just like free speech, I'm sure the Supreme court and law makers will agree that you can regulate firearms without being guilty of "infringement." For example, age restrictions, background checks, and restrictions for criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Why? It illustrates the argument, and in fact, is wholly pertinent to the discussion of the limits of federal powers and the unlimited powers of the people.
Because I just want to know, 2nd amendment aside, who has the right to regulate firearms.
I want to ignore the 2nd amendment for a second. I'm basically asking a states vs federal rights question, and do not want it to turn into a 2nd amendment vs gun control argument.
Okay let me put it this way then. If the 2nd amendment did not exist, would the state or federal government have to power to regulate firearms?
States would (unless their individual state Constitution banned it for that state).
Fed wouldn't, unless the firearms was in interstate commerce.
But the ratification of the 2nd banned both areas of restricting firearms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
