|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 22, 2009, 09:17 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
|
|
July 22, 2009, 09:34 PM | #27 | |
Member
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 23, 2009, 07:19 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
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. |
July 23, 2009, 08:35 AM | #29 |
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?
;-) |
July 23, 2009, 03:40 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
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
|
July 27, 2009, 05:16 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
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.) |
|
July 27, 2009, 08:33 PM | #32 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 27, 2009, 09:05 PM | #33 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 27, 2009, 09:19 PM | #34 |
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
|
July 27, 2009, 09:32 PM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
July 27, 2009, 09:34 PM | #36 |
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?
|
July 27, 2009, 09:45 PM | #37 | |
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:
__________________
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 |
|
July 27, 2009, 10:14 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
|
Quote:
|
|
July 28, 2009, 10:04 AM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
Under Stewart, a homegrown machine gun for personal use may be regulated (prohibited) by the feds, even if it is never sold. |
|
July 28, 2009, 10:43 AM | #40 | ||
Member
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
July 28, 2009, 11:53 AM | #41 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Quote:
|
|
July 28, 2009, 12:20 PM | #42 |
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. |
July 28, 2009, 12:48 PM | #43 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
July 28, 2009, 01:25 PM | #44 |
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. |
August 24, 2009, 05:27 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,530
|
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:
__________________
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 |
|
|
|