January 29, 2010, 11:11 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Posts: 8
|
Firearms Freedom Act??
I am going to ask a good question.Since there are 2 states(Mt,Tn)that have already passed the Firearms Freedam Act,and 21 more states that have already introduced legislation,and another 8 intending to introduce it,and I know it will probably have to go to court before the federal govt. will recognize it,but could this law make "pre-ban" and "post-ban"semi-auto's a thing of the past as long as the weapons remain in the states they are manufactured in?
|
January 29, 2010, 11:27 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
|
There's no federal ban on semi-auto features anymore, so I don't see how it's relevant.
|
January 29, 2010, 01:11 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
"pre-ban" and "post-ban" no longer meaningful.
|
January 29, 2010, 01:38 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 47
|
It means something in New York State, and other states where there are "assault weapons" bans of their own.
To answer the OP, the way I interpret it, the answer is yes technically. But there would be a court case somewhere down the line and then you'd have the whole deal of the federal gov't declaring it null and void and then it would probably might as well have never existed. Times are different than they were in the 1850's. |
January 29, 2010, 03:37 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
|
I like New Hampshire's bill:
HB1285 Quote:
Kind of hard to be an ATFE agent if you're a convicted felon.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. Last edited by rburch; January 29, 2010 at 03:42 PM. Reason: to add the link. |
|
January 29, 2010, 03:58 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2010, 04:24 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Blacksburg VA
Posts: 750
|
Quote:
I think it's more of a "Do you feel Lucky?" challenge in response to the ATFE's notice to the folks in Montana and Tennessee.
__________________
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain. |
|
January 29, 2010, 04:38 PM | #8 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
All of these bills are currently being challenged in litigation. The Second Amendment Foundation is supporting that fight. |
|
January 30, 2010, 02:01 PM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,753
|
Are these Firearms Freedom bills a double edged sword?
On one side, the basis is that Federal law doesn not apply to items made in, and only existing in the state. A nice idea, on the surface, State's rights, and all.
But the other side, the effort to get the US 2nd amendment to apply to states, something many consider to be a good thing, seems to me to go in the opposite direction. IF we support the right and authority of individual states to keep Federal laws out, how can we support the Federal 2nd amd, being "in"? Is the solution a two tier system, with only state law applying to those items made and used only in state, and state and Fed law applying to those items that have moved in interstate commerce? Also, if a govt agent is charged (and found guilty) of a crime under state law, for arresting me for a Fed law violation, does that mean that I am off the hook for for the Fed violation? OR am I still charged with a Fed crime? This seems like a real can of worms to me, and I doubt any of us are going to relish the taste in the end. We should proceed with care.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 31, 2010, 12:29 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
Alternatively, a federal judge could enjoin a state court from proceeding. They are reluctant to do this normally, but this is not a normal case. In other words, it's really a waste of ink and paper. |
|
January 31, 2010, 02:31 AM | #11 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Bill of Rights on the other hand is a guarantee of individual rights. These rights are preexisting and no government can justly take them away. The States are not free to oppress their own citizens (segregate by race, deny them freedom of speech, seize their property without recompense, tamper with elections etc.) By the 14th Amendment, the Federal government is empowered to enforce these basic rights for all citizens. So in both cases, the Federal government is acting in the proper role outlined for it in the Constitution. Of course the big problem with my argument is you have to overturn Wickard to get there, and I don't see that happening - though it should. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|