In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Under whos authority?
daddo
Member Posts: 3,408
Isn't it the states rights "only" to make laws concerning guns?
How is it the Federal Government can inact such laws that are taking away our rights?
How is it the Federal Government can inact such laws that are taking away our rights?
Comments
So I guess the government has no regard for the constitution so they will pass any and all laws they want on any level.
My question is- "does the federal government have the authority to make certain laws or any law to restrict these accounts?"
Oh,by the way..." violent felons" really should be put to death...making the gun issue moot.Other 'felons' ought to be put in a work camp for their sentence...then handed back their .45
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
***Isn't it the states rights "only" to make laws concerning guns?
How is it the Federal Government can inact such laws that are taking away our rights?***
I'm looking for a real answere to a real question. Does anyone know?
As to how they can:
We let them.
On the criminals owning guns thing, I think it's a bunch of malarky.
Once a man has paid his debt to society, he should have his rights reinstated.
Stand And Be Counted
Unless you are very young,or very slow...the answer is that there is NO PROVISION IN THE CONTSTITUTION for the fedgov to make ANY GUN LAWS.
They make them.and we obey them.because they will kill you. if you disobey the law.....capeesh ?
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
http://www.ou-research.com (To make you do it )
So all of US loose whatever right we have left .....
There is something we need "UNITY" but "the matrix" never permits it
and those having the technology never get the money.....
You need to be a GOD ,the bad thing is if you become one you raise yourself on a clowd and say.....
I go,I leave you are on yourselves be slaves to the one with power and greed .....
MMMMM I think the last time that happened was 2000 Years Ago ....
and still waiting ..... The point is he came again but got so frustrated he just left again...Never to return ...Or politics got him so bad that he will not get it strait even with a crane !
So the next CONTROL is RELIGION, the better side at the other turf
yep! be a good boy so you earn heaven being my slave,pay your taxes
get mugged,turn the other cheek and get it toasted drama ,becauseeee
you will go to heaven "If you leave earth to be HELL !"
AAAAAleeeee luuuuyyaaaaa SALAMAYA ....
By the way SALAMAYA means Satan "SA" Gave Me "LA" Control over you. "Maya" (Illusion).
So you know for Whom thoose "Salamaya" ministers work for.
JD
400 million cows can't be wrong ( EAT GRASS !!! )
I thought my question was well founded based on this and it is best to try to get educated on this subject than to remain ignorant. That way it would prevent one from appearing "young or slow".
I thank the people with the more helpfull answeres!
All these nra defenders out there..care to answer ?
Daddo..forgive me...the smart remarks wern't directed at you.Some of us have been fighting this battle for 40 years..and watching the steady errosion of ALL rights...not just gun rights.
Read the Second Amendment,the Bill of Rights,and the Constitution.It does'nt take a learned bearded black robe to understand what it says.
Do you really think that a nation of people that had just thrown off the schackles of central authority would turn right around and allow a strong central authority (fedgov) to make laws on the very tools that made then free ??
God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
AlleninAlaska
He who dares not offend cannot be honest.
-- Thomas Paine
When the federal courts got cases involving guns they looked at the only place where gun law was mentioned, and that was the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which is a federal document.
They had a case, for example, wherein a sawed off shotgun was used by an unsavory character. The federal court felt that the Amendment did indeed protect guns owned by citizens which were appropriate to the militia -- or the military. So they asked themselves, has anyone used a sawed off shotgun in the military? They answered their own question in the negative, and ruled against the guy, thereby creating one of the first legal precendents, if not the very first legal precedent, for federal gun legislation. They decided there was no federal law permitting a citizen to own a sawed off shotgun because the word militia in the Second Amendment did not seem to include the category of sawed off shotguns. This was a misinterpretation of the law, but, believe it or not, the crook's defense team didn't show up for court that day, so there was no argument that sawed off shotguns were indeed used during the world wars. This argument might have avoided the whole federal precedent for gun legislation. So the court ruled against the guy, believing sawed-offs were non-military.
So the opening clause, which is merely the "rationale portion" of the Second Amendment, is still today being mistaken for permission to make gun law at the federal level, even though that rationale of a citizen militia is immediately followed by the order that the people's right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Weird, huh?
Oh yeah, and then there was the unfortunate business about gansters adopting Tommy guns. Suddenly there was concern at the federal level about automatic weapons in the hands of citizens. You know the rest.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 08/15/2002 01:03:55
I see what you're saying but, point of fact, the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed roughly six years before Jack Miller (the "crook" in question) was brought to court for charges of not paying the $200 NFA tax on his perviously legal, sawed-off $10 shotgun.
While I understand that you're saying Miller's case was the first precedent, I don't want the younger and/or firearms law challenged crowd to think that US Versus Miller was the beginning.
Miller just happened to be the first casualty.
Gentlemen, please keep in mind that it is not illegal to own machine guns, suppressors, sawed off shotguns, etc.
It's simply illegal not to pay the Federal government the $200 tithe per weapon for the priviliege of owning such weapons.
As to the sawed off shotgun not being a "militia" weapon: that's a bunch of malarky, as well. Short barrelled shotguns were well-used in trench warfare. You history buffs can verify this.
But wait...there's legal precedent in Miller's case saying that sawed offs are not militia weapons because they've never been used by the military. Okay...let's back up. So, what they're saying is that it's okay for militia (That's you, by the way.) to own firearms used by our military. Kind of the whole point of a militia, nay? Be able to keep the jackboot off your neck?
Anyhow, the question has already been answered.
Those who challenge the unconstitutional gun laws with a vengeance (Yours truly), haave a bad habit of finding either an MP5 in their ear when they step out of the office to go home or they "find" machine guns, kiddie porn, crack, tactical nukes, etc. in the poor fellas basement.
Then the JBT's (That's Jack Booted Thug in Patriotese.) get to prance in front of the camera and puff up their feathers talking about how they rid the world of another threat to the sheep.
Then the poor fellas ****ing peers start jabbering about how the guy got what he deserved, makes us all look bad, etc. and they don't even have the full story.
Hell, I came on here trying to make public my troubles with the BATF in case something were to happen to me. What did I get? I got crapped on by quite a few people. Some offered their support. Others took it into their head that I was doing something illegal and basically made public that I got what was coming to me.
It's a defense mechanism, because to look past all their own rhetoric and see the truth would force them into action they're not willing to commit to.
Therefore, by intentionally blinding themselves to the truth with these defense mechanisms such as demonizing their convicted peer, they feel confidant that they didn't shirk their duty as free men.
That's why nothing has been done. Those of us with the brass ones to openly challenege this blatant tyranny have a bad habit of committing suicide, being involved in fatal one car accidents, leaving fully assembled machine guns and suppressors laying on the kitchen counter when BATF comes over for an inspection, etc.
If we knew our peers would back us, we'd be more aggressive politically.
Sorry to drone on, but this is a touchy subject with me. It's tough when you feel like the only player on the field facing the home team's best defensive line.
It's always best to end with a qoute, so:
"They can kill me, but there will always be more like me."
Stand And Be Counted