The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 22, 2009, 09:17 PM   #26
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
These same issues were what started the Civil war here.
Indeed. Are you planning on seceding and forming the Sovereign State of Skeezixstan? With no ATF and no IRS, you might get more than a few people to join you.
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 22, 2009, 09:34 PM   #27
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky B
Indeed. Are you planning on seceding and forming the Sovereign State of Skeezixstan? With no ATF and no IRS, you might get more than a few people to join you.
Possibly! Ever read anything by Robert Lukens? He has an interesting book on this idea called 'The Place To Stand' and can be downloaded free over at http://soverindi.com/home/
His writing sometimes is more like trying to imitate Ayn Rand (with long lectures) or to use events close to today and just changing names, but the philosophy and point behind it is something that made me think. I don't agree with a lot of things, whether here or elsewhere, but as long as it stretches me to think it will either present a better way, or fortify my own personal convictions.
skeezix is offline  
Old July 23, 2009, 07:19 AM   #28
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,885
Wickard is not going to be overturned. We saw in Raich that even Scalia is willing to rely on it without questioning it, and only Thomas suggested reconsidering the whole aggregation principle and substantial effects test.

On the intrastate guns issue, we don't have a direct precedent because there are significant differences between an otherwise legal gun made in Montana and something covered by Wickard, Raich, or Stewart.

Wickard was not just innocently growing his own wheat, completely removed from any federal influence until the evil Supreme Court came along. He was a participant in a FEDERAL price control program. Congress was saying to farmers, "You can grow this many acres, and we'll guarantee you this much money per bushel." Wickard grew some EXTRA acres, beyond his allotment in the program to which he had agreed, and claimed they were for his family to use, and to feed his animals. Some of those animals were then sold (in or affecting interstate commerce.)

A homegrown gun maker who is not getting federal subsidies is not directly comparable.

In Raich and Stewart, Congress has decided to completely extinguish the interstate market in cannabis and in unregistered machine guns, respectively.

A homegrown gun maker who is not making NFA weapons is not directly comparable.
publius42 is offline  
Old July 23, 2009, 08:35 AM   #29
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
I guess then the problem is also this - Why doesn't the money stay in the hands of citizens in the first place instead of being coerced into the hands of a Federal government who throws it around wherever they see fit?

;-)
skeezix is offline  
Old July 23, 2009, 03:40 PM   #30
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
Great comments Publius42. I had not heard that background about federal subsidies on the wheat case before. As we all know, once you accept money from Uncle Sam, he gets to make all the rules for you. Especially if he pays you to NOT do something and then you do it anyway.

Lesson learned: If the Feds offer subsidies to FFLs to not make certain firearms, DON'T! It's a trap! As is the Feds would ever pay an FFL a dime.
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 05:16 PM   #31
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Great comments Publius42. I had not heard that background about federal subsidies on the wheat case before.
I found out about it by reading the opinion:

Wickard vs Filburn

That case is not going away, and it makes two important points:

1. The power to regulate interstate commerce extends to the regulation of those things that affect interstate commerce, even if they occur entirely within one state. (The Substantial Effects Test.)

2. The fact that one guy with a few acres of wheat really doesn't affect interstate commerce does not matter if there are lots of other people who are similarly situated, and if their combined actions, taken as a whole, could affect interstate commerce. (The Aggregation Principle.)
publius42 is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 08:33 PM   #32
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
A homegrown gun maker who is not getting federal subsidies is not directly comparable.

In Raich and Stewart, Congress has decided to completely extinguish the interstate market in cannabis and in unregistered machine guns, respectively.

A homegrown gun maker who is not making NFA weapons is not directly comparable.
Quote:
Wickard vs Filburn

That case is not going away, and it makes two important points:

1. The power to regulate interstate commerce extends to the regulation of those things that affect interstate commerce, even if they occur entirely within one state. (The Substantial Effects Test.)

2. The fact that one guy with a few acres of wheat really doesn't affect interstate commerce does not matter if there are lots of other people who are similarly situated, and if their combined actions, taken as a whole, could affect interstate commerce. (The Aggregation Principle.)
So do you agree that under Wickard that the federal govt can regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms even if the firearms are manufactured and sold entirely within one state?
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 09:05 PM   #33
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeezix
We are not bound to obey silly unconstitutional laws. We are not bound to follow a law simply because the Federal government and courts say we should, especially when that law violates the Supreme Law of the Land of which our governments are supposed to be upholding.
Unless the court agrees that it's unconstitutional, you'll still be paying the penalty. So I guess that I don't understand what "not bound to obey" means when not obeying gets you a jail sentence or something similar.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 09:19 PM   #34
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
I'm not sure what "obeying" means if it requires you to give up liberty or freedom
skeezix is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 09:32 PM   #35
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeezix
I'm not sure what "obeying" means if it requires you to give up liberty or freedom
Last I heard, you give up a lot of liberty and freedom in jail.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 09:34 PM   #36
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
Or as a slave, but like I've said before jails have their own built-in dating service, can't be all bad, eh?
skeezix is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 09:45 PM   #37
Hellbilly5000
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2009
Location: RGV, Tx
Posts: 787
I have not read the whole tread just yet but this struck me right off the bat

Quote:
the states have aright to make their own gun laws", but the ATF says "the states don't have a right to make their own gun laws?"
If that was true then the states of NY Cali NJ ect have no right to tell people they need to get a permit from the state before they buy a handgun and also it would stop Cali from saying no more then 10 rounds or no more of this gun just because
__________________
And death climbs the steps one by one, To give you the rose that's been burnt by her son, Point me to the sky above I can't get there on my own, Walk me through the graveyard Dig up her bones
Hellbilly5000 is offline  
Old July 27, 2009, 10:14 PM   #38
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
Quote:
like I've said before jails have their own built-in dating service, can't be all bad, eh?
Well, let us know how good those dating services after you've asserted your right to disobey "silly unconstitutional laws" that the courts have ruled are constitutional.
Ricky B is offline  
Old July 28, 2009, 10:04 AM   #39
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,885
Quote:
So do you agree that under Wickard that the federal govt can regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms even if the firearms are manufactured and sold entirely within one state?
I don't agree with what has happened, but what has happened is actually worse than you have outlined.

Under Stewart, a homegrown machine gun for personal use may be regulated (prohibited) by the feds, even if it is never sold.
publius42 is offline  
Old July 28, 2009, 10:43 AM   #40
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
Quote:
Under Stewart, a homegrown machine gun for personal use may be regulated (prohibited) by the feds, even if it is never sold.
So can fruits and veggies, clothing, milk, and using a bicycle instead of paying for gas if they would so choose.

Life, fortune, and sacred honor. There is a reason they considered some things more important than these, or rather more important than the life and fortune so that the sacred honor would mean something.

Quote:
Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
skeezix is offline  
Old July 28, 2009, 11:53 AM   #41
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,760
Quote:
Unless the court agrees that it's unconstitutional, you'll still be paying the penalty. So I guess that I don't understand what "not bound to obey" means when not obeying gets you a jail sentence or something similar.
It means civil disobedience.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is online now  
Old July 28, 2009, 12:20 PM   #42
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
From what I keep reading from a lot of you folks is that if Congress passes a law, the president agrees, and the courts say it is ok, then therefore it is ok regardless of the law.

Does that still stand if it forces you to pay for someone else's abortion under this new healthcare plan?
Does it still stand if you must give up 50% or more of your income in direct taxes, plus whatever amount you pay for every single product or service which pays for taxes for the folks who made those products or services happen?
Does it still stand if you are forced to pay taxes to have propaganda taught to your children in schools rather than an actual education?
Does it still stand if your 'religion' or lack of puts your on a terrorist watch list?
Does it still stand when people are murdered by the ATF or FBI over a supposed $200 tax issue in Idaho?

There was a man who went to visit a friend, whom was a preacher, in another place. When he got there, he found men had tied his friend up and beaten him almost to death because he did not have a 'license' or 'permit' from the government to be a minister. His friend died shortly after. He stood before Congress not long after this, and the speech he made was ended as written below.

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry

We all have a choice in our lives of how to live it, and I certainly do not want to see a violent revolution in this country, which is why these tea parties are becoming so popular. It is a non-violent way to say "excuse me but we want answers" and ask that our cries be heard.

It isn't just about us, but about what world we leave our children. The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
skeezix is offline  
Old July 28, 2009, 12:48 PM   #43
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
It means civil disobedience.
No, "not bound to obey" does not mean that. Civil disobedience is intentionally and publicly breaking the law in a non-violent manner to make a political point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skeezix
From what I keep reading from a lot of you folks is that if Congress passes a law, the president agrees, and the courts say it is ok, then therefore it is ok regardless of the law....
Whether or not it's okay is not the question. It still however is the law, and it's enforceable until a court says it's not. And if you object to the law, our system offers a number of ways to peaceably change things.

In any case, who appointed you to decide if the law is or is not okay? And if you and a bunch of your buddies think it's not okay, but another bunch of citizens thinks it is, who decides? In real life, a court's opinion of whether a law is valid and enforceable trumps yours, because the court's opinion affects the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinion on whether a law is valid and enforceable and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Of course, if anyone wants to spout slogans and play armchair revolutionary, he's free to do so.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old July 28, 2009, 01:25 PM   #44
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
You know, that might even be why I wrote We all have a choice in our lives of how to live it.
I am quite thankful for this forum and to hear ideas of others, especially those who make me stretch a bit and think. As for armchair revolutionary, it applies accurately to people who speak and do nothing else. I hope no one is like that here, but sadly chances are that is probably the majority.

The largest and majority issues of our Declaration of Independence were centered around the abuses of executive, legislative and judicial powers. Kind of like today.
skeezix is offline  
Old August 24, 2009, 05:27 PM   #45
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,458
SAF has issued this news release

Apparently they are girding their loins for the battle to come or they are going to try to try to apply the Montana model nationwide. Its a bit confusing the way they wrote the news release.

Dateline August 24, 2009

Quote:
NEWS RELEASE

Gun Groups to Sue over Montana-made and Retained Firearms

BELLEVUE, WA - the Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA) and the
Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have formed a strategic alliance to
litigate the principles of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act (MFFA),
passed by the 2009 Montana Legislature and signed into law by Montana
Governor Brian Schweitzer.

The MFFA declares that any firearms made and retained in Montana are
not subject to any federal authority, resisting Congress's
dramatically expanded use of the interstate commerce clause to
justify Washington's regulation of virtually all of the private
economy. The MFFA also applies to firearm accessories and ammunition.

MSSA is most well-known for advancing pro-gun and pro-hunting bills
in the Montana Legislature, and has been successful with 54 pro-gun
and pro-hunting measures in the past 25 years. SAF is a pro-gun
foundation in Bellevue, Washington, established to press the rights
of gun owners primarily in judicial fora. SAF has been a party to
numerous lawsuits to assert the rights of gun owners across the Nation.

The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a legal challenge to
federal power under the commerce clause. MSSA and SAF expect to
mount this legal challenge by filing a suit for a declaratory
judgment to test the principles of the MFFA in federal court on
October 1st, the day the Montana law becomes effective.

The concept of the Firearms Freedom Act has caught fire
nationwide. Tennessee has passed a clone of the MFFA. Other clones
have been introduced in the legislatures of Alaska, Texas, Florida,
South Carolina, Minnesota and Michigan. Legislators in 19 other
states have indicated that they will introduce MFFA clones soon or
when their legislatures next convene. See: http://firearmsfreedomact.com

This wave of interest across the Nation is what the federal judiciary
calls "emerging consensus" and will play an important role in
validating the principles of the MFFA.

MSSA president Gary Marbut commented, "We're excited to get the MFFA
into court to articulate and argue the principles of freedom and
states' rights. It's especially encouraging that people in so many
other states are getting tickets to ride this particular freedom
train. It will be an interesting journey, and we hope successful one."

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added, "This is an issue that needs public
attention because it challenges federal intrusion into an area where
the federal government clearly, and literally, has no business."

The MSSA/SAF legal team is currently working up its arguments and
litigation strategy. The team has identified several areas of
rationale' that have never been discussed before in cases about
Congress's commerce clause power. The general thesis is that
Washington has gone way overboard in attempting to regulate the
internal affairs of states under the strained theory that states'
internal activities are related to interstate commerce.

Although the MFFA addresses firearms, ammunition and firearm
accessories specifically, it is primarily about states' rights and
the commerce clause power of Congress. Firearms are the object;
states' rights and freedom are the subject.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13238 seconds with 9 queries