|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 10, 2013, 03:33 PM | #26 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
(And unfortunately here I need to go work, so I'm going to add the half a thought I had running in VERY broad strokes so I can come back to it when I return to free time and not lose what I've already got down so far...) So for my own notes Passenger cases, Chief Justice Taney, Quote:
If the power to permit, and the power to deny are opposite sides of the same police power coin, then a case where police power allowing something not trumping the Congressional power denying that commerce should also suffice. As states are legalizing medical, and now, recreational marijuana, the prohibition against the transfer of firearms in interstate commerce to those individuals who partake remains. In fact, as has been pointed out in this forum numerous times, a State's permission does not trump the Federal denial, as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Edit to add: Also revise and extend to include the Taking's clause. Last edited by JimDandy; October 10, 2013 at 04:14 PM. |
|||
October 10, 2013, 06:58 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
I think there's a bit of misapprehension some may have. While the Commerce Clause has been broadly interpreted to give regulatory authority over anything in or effecting interstate commerce, that does not meet states cannot regulate conduct inside the states that effect interstate commerce. There is a large area of overlapping authority between state and federal government.
The issue of overlapping authority sometimes comes up in court when there is a claim that a state cannot regulate certain conduct or certain things. The courts then go through a preemption analysis. A state is preempted from regulating conduct if the federal government expressly preempts state regulation in a certain area. There can also be implied preemption in two ways: (1) is there a conflict in federal and state laws such that one cannot obey the federal law without violating state law and (2) does the federal law so "occupy the area" as to leave no room for state regulation. The federal government has not expressly preempted the entire field of firearm regulation. Nor has it so completely occupied the field that it leaves no room for state regulaton. There may be additional regulation by some states, such as a waiting period to purchase a firearm, but that does not result in breaking any federal law. |
October 10, 2013, 07:08 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Now that makes sense, and I can wrap my head around that enough to move to the next question.. is there an appreciable difference between a waiting period that does not ban this commerce, and.. a ban on some part of this commerce?
To draw an analogy that I particularly dislike but don't see an easy way around: Could a State ban the Toyota Camry even if said Camry meets the federal highway standards, because their police power says the presence of the Camry induces auto theft in their state? I ask this because I'm not sure/convinced the Federal Government hasn't fully occupied the laws on what may be possessed and how one may possess it. And if they can't ban the Camry, with less regulation... |
October 10, 2013, 08:36 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
As for the automobile, California has long had more stringent air pollution standards for autos than the rest of the country so they could ban the sale of an auto that didn't meet the standards. As to the waiting period, I think that is a perfect example of how the feds do not occupy the field of firearms sales. They only require a background check which doesn't provide a so-called "cooling off" period to prevent rash homicides or suicides.
Federal preemption can get to be fairly complex and a lot of good lawyers never deal with it because of the nature of their practice. I had occasion to deal with it a couple of times years ago because of my duties at the time. My first post, though, practically drained everything I remember about the topic. Oh, one minor addition -- the courts are more likely to say no preemption if a state is exercising its traditional police powers, but there's a lot of grey there. |
October 10, 2013, 09:43 PM | #30 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
And the bottom line is that if California's law prohibiting possession by individuals in California of certain types of semi-automatic rifles is going to be struck down by the courts, it will most likely be struck down on Second Amendment grounds -- not on Commerce Clause grounds.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
October 11, 2013, 12:39 AM | #31 |
Junior Member
Join Date: July 13, 2013
Posts: 6
|
On the automobile emissions law id think that we have to remember that the federal government explicitly granted the state of CA the authority to regulate emissions on its own. other states can sign on to CA’s higher system or to the base model federal but can not create their own systems. difference here with firearms is there is a constitutional amendment, and then there is a regulatory scheme that defines dangerous and unusual, the regulatory tax stamp system for states to regulate or ban it and courts have accepted/created in common use definition…..so then looking at the various laws GCA, NFA etc, unlike the clean air act the feds didn’t carve out and grants states extra authority to create new classes of weapons beyond dangerous and unusual and in common use. they gave them the authority to regulate NFA tax stamp weapons… dangerous and unusual like SBR’s, Full auto, cannons etc. since semi automatic or the mechanically identical sporting rifles most likely meet the in common use criteria, the states trying to regulate it via creating some new classification that lack mechanical differences and instead are trying to regulate cosmetics are walking a thin line.
with cars its its not a right its just comers with firearms the right exist, there is something defining a low water mark…. the federal nfa and tax stamps for dangerous an unusual anything below the low water mark the states can choose to allow or deny on the grounds of granting a stamp or not but the high water mark is in common use. if a state tries to lower the bar on the in common use or not dangerous and unusual it seems they are trying to infringe. commerce or not it is the only innate object that is protected in some way shape pr form but its still being hashed out. Don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to insert myself as an expert like some of the above posts but aren’t most federal firearms laws claiming authority via the taxing power (NFA) and also over commerce (NFA & GCA) of those….. anyways after reading above I’m still a little fuzzy and probably missed it. Since the rifle was purchased and not home manufactured it appears commerce and in this interstate commerce was engaged in….. doesn’t it…. just asking. Last edited by ddestruel; October 11, 2013 at 09:41 AM. |
October 11, 2013, 12:50 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,951
|
Just look at the mish mash over magazines try taking a Hicap mag into New York or CA. Same difference.
Or try carrying hollow point bullets in your ccw in New Jersey.
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/ Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S. |
October 11, 2013, 01:00 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Location: Panhandle, Idaho
Posts: 714
|
There are some dry counties in states such as Mississippi where not only the purchase of alcohol is illegal, but the possession and transport as well. Your Arizonian taking a bottle of hooch through one of them will be afoul of the law, the same as if he carried what was defined as an illegal assault weapon into California.
|
October 11, 2013, 01:00 AM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
In any case, Smith bought the rifle (apparently legally) in Arizona. He merely took it to California as his property. That is not "commerce." See post 14 for a definition of "commerce."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 11, 2013, 01:13 AM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The best answer is that --
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 11, 2013, 09:01 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 4,000
|
You pretty much just defined supplier and consumer for me, thanks.
Sounds like you want to argue this to absurdity, so please continue.
__________________
God gave you a soul. Your parents, a body. Your country, a rifle. Keep all of them clean. |
October 11, 2013, 10:47 AM | #37 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
October 11, 2013, 11:18 AM | #38 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The fact that the Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly enough to permit federal regulation of certain matters does not mean that a State may not also regulate those matters within its borders.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 11, 2013, 12:29 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 728
|
I understand the charged of possession of an illegal weapon by state law. I don't understand being charged with possession of an unregistered weapon when the weapon is illegal by state law and can't be registered with the state. Wouldn't/shouldn't possession of an unregistered weapon be covered by the illegal weapon charge?
|
October 11, 2013, 12:47 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2006
Location: Panhandle, Idaho
Posts: 714
|
Quote:
|
|
October 11, 2013, 03:17 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
October 11, 2013, 03:49 PM | #42 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The news article linked to in the OP says: and: The article later notes: Nowhere in the article is the crime charged referred to as "possession of unregistered assault weapons." The rifles being unregistered is merely a fact noted in the article.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
October 11, 2013, 04:59 PM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
The lack of registration of 'Assault weapons' is somewhat of a 'gating factor' and exposes one to punishment, which might be avoided if the weapons had been properly registered when that was possible.
The crimes are in Penal Code 30600 Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
October 14, 2013, 08:45 AM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
It would be interesting to see how that interacts with HAYNES v. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)
IF you can't possess it without registering it - AND the registry is closed THEN isn't it a 5A violation similar to, but not exactly like Haynes? |
October 14, 2013, 10:58 AM | #45 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Smith was charged with possession of a rifle which is illegal to possess in California. That's really all there is to it. If Smith had possessed the rifle as a resident of California before its possession became illegal, and if when possession became illegal he had registered is as was then provided for under California law, those facts would have been an affirmative defense to the charge of possession of an illegal rifle. But neither of those facts is true. So it's simply a matter that Smith was found in possession of contraband (i. e., something which may not lawfully possessed). The long expired California amnesty is irrelevant.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|