Is our LTCH in danger?

[Episcopus]

Only if they add one.

No legislation has to include one. It is typically added to prevent outright revolt. Doesn't matter if you are talking about guns, taxes, or anything else, people get really testy if you try to take away what they already own. So what they typically do it write a 'grandfather' clause to allow you to keep what you have but prevent you from getting anything new. You are pissed. But the next generation has no clue what they are missing because they never had it so they don't realize what they lost.

Look for semi-auto registration soon after the next AWB. That would also likely include pump shotguns too.

Another reason they add them is to avoid takings issues. If they come take something from you, they have to reimburse you for it. With roughly 300 million guns in the country, they will never come take what we have because they don't want to pay market price for 300 million guns.

 

[4sarge]

I don't see any federal power that would reach carrying a firearm, either open or concealed. Under what plausible theory could they ban carrying a gun?

They are Democrats, Anti Gun, Pro Brady; they will find a way, legality or the US Constitution doesn't matter to them. They passed AWB I and Obama has already stated that he wants a ban on all semi autos.

 

[Bigum1969]

Another reason they add them is to avoid takings issues. If they come take something from you, they have to reimburse you for it. With roughly 300 million guns in the country, they will never come take what we have because they don't want to pay market price for 300 million guns.

They just dropped $700 billion to bail out Wall Street and the banks. I don't think money will be a problem for the Feds.

 

[Episcopus]

They just dropped $700 billion to bail out Wall Street and the banks. I don't think money will be a problem for the Feds.

$700 Billion went to their buddies. paying for $300 million guns will not go to their friends. If they wanted to give us commoners any money, they could have done it as part of the bailout. They don't want to give us anything, so they won't come take our guns.

 

[Episcopus]

They are Democrats, Anti Gun, Pro Brady; they will find a way, legality or the US Constitution doesn't matter to them. They passed AWB I and Obama has already stated that he wants a ban on all semi autos.

Sure, they can pass any bill they want. How are they going to enforce it? There is no federal power that would allow federal regulation of carrying a firearm.

 

[Feign]

Sure, they can pass any bill they want. How are they going to enforce it? There is no federal power that would allow federal regulation of carrying a firearm.

You think DHS won't become a part of it?

 

[rhino]

They are Democrats, Anti Gun, Pro Brady; they will find a way, legality or the US Constitution doesn't matter to them. They passed AWB I and Obama has already stated that he wants a ban on all semi autos.

Plenty of Republicans will support them every step of the way, especially after the momentum swings so strongly toward the extreme left. Don't expect the likes of Richard Lugar to protect you from anything "they" do because he and a lot of other Republicans are part of "them."

 

[Episcopus]

You think DHS won't become a part of it?

You are missing the point. How will they enforce these laws once they hit the courts? They will charge one person, the NRA will step in and their sweeping dreams will be crushed. There is no federal power that would allow regulation of carrying a weapon,

 

[Bigum1969]

You are missing the point. How will they enforce these laws once they hit the courts? They will charge one person, the NRA will step in and their sweeping dreams will be crushed. There is no federal power that would allow regulation of carrying a weapon,

Don't you think this could end up like the pot issue in California? The state says marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes, but federal law says it is illegal. Several of the places selling marijuana legally under state law have been raided and shut down by the feds. So basically it ends up being the state vs the feds. And the feds usually win.

 

[Episcopus]

Don't you think this could end up like the pot issue in California? The state says marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes, but federal law says it is illegal. Several of the places selling marijuana legally under state law have been raided and shut down by the feds. So basically it ends up being the state vs the feds. And the feds usually win.

How would carrying a gun fall under the commerce clause?

 

[rhino]

Episcopus ... I don't disagree with you, but could you explain how this would be different than the imposition of the gun bans included in the Crime Act of 1994? Is there a substantial difference between the Federal gov't telling us what we can and can't buy (or have) vs. telling us what we can and can't carry on our persons?

 

[schhrdkncks]

People say cold dead hands but the few who would actually stand up would just be labeled terrorists by the government and the media. As far as I know not one person stood up in New Orleans and I am sure out of all of those confiscations there was atleast one person who thought cold dead hands also. Alot will say that but few will do it.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Don't you think this could end up like the pot issue in California? The state says marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes, but federal law says it is illegal. Several of the places selling marijuana legally under state law have been raided and shut down by the feds. So basically it ends up being the state vs the feds. And the feds usually win.

How would carrying a gun fall under the commerce clause?

Carrying a gun falls under Interstate Commerce the same way that pot grown within one's own home, with seeds from plants previously grown in one's own home, for use by the homeowner within his/her home falls under the same clause-because Congress says so and no one has yet brought that challenge far enough to get a ruling on it.

Actually, I think they would say that they have more ability to control guns, since those have been bought and/or sold in interstate commerce either as finished product or even as raw material.

I could be mistaken, but I think that same clause was how they got Roe v. Wade through SCOTUS, rather than leaving it as a "states' rights" issue. (I hate that expression: States do not have rights. States are arbitrary boundries set up as government entities. Gov't entities have powers. Only people have rights.)

It is that same clause that allows Congress to think it has a say on how much water your toilet is allowed to flush.

The Interstate Commerce clause is probably the most abused clause in the Constitution.

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

People say cold dead hands but the few who would actually stand up would just be labeled terrorists by the government and the media. As far as I know not one person stood up in New Orleans and I am sure out of all of those confiscations there was atleast one person who thought cold dead hands also. Alot will say that but few will do it.

How many are there that perhaps you don't know about and were never told did it? It's not like the libbie news media would tell you about someone successfully defending their rights.

Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

The Interstate Commerce clause is probably the most abused clause in the Constitution.

Agreed.

In my view, they could regulate sale and production of guns through the commerce clause (if you ignore the 2A). There is no rational relationship between carrying a gun and commerce, so they can't regulate carrying through the commerce clause.

The '94 gun ban regulated sale and production. Sale and production are obviously commercial activities. I could see them trying to ban manufacture or sale of all semi-autos, or all handguns or all guns capable of being concealed under the commerce clause, but not carrying a gun. That would just be too overreaching, even for the most abused power the federal government has.

I disagree with them regulating home grown pot through the commerce clause. However, they claim that there is a market for pot and anyone growing it affects that market, so there is a rational tie to commerce. The logic goes that the people growing pot would be buying it otherwise. Because they are not buying it, they are affecting interstate commerce. They have done this before with wheat.

 

[jsgolfman]

I would say it is second in abuse to the welfare clause, though no less detrimental to our prosperity.

 

[Episcopus]

I would say it is second in abuse to the welfare clause, though no less detrimental to our prosperity.

I assume you mean this one

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

I don't think that clause is abused. I think there are differing views about how much it should be used, but all actions taken in its name are clearly within its scope.

The commerce clause, on the other hand, is abused. This:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

does not clearly give the government the power to regulate production or manufacture. The clearest meaning would be that it allows congress to regulate how states conduct commerce with each other. It might allow the government to regulate activities which substantially impact commerce between states, but it doesn't give the government the power to regulate everything that has ever moved in interstate commerce. Some of the things done in the name of the commerce clause have been good, a lot have been bad, all have broadened it well beyond the plain meaning taken from a reading of the clause.

 

[Mike Elzinga]

"Cold dead hands" is probably the dumbest thing one could say in the situation and unfortunatly repeated way too often. If you make them "pry it from your cold, dead hands" then they will. Where does that leave us? With a bunch of dead gun rights advocates. Thats why this political time is so important. People can preach ridiculous bravado if they want, but in the end it wont get anyone anywhere they wanna be. I am certain that plenty of people in England, Japan, and other countries said the same thing, and yet we all know how it ended up. We would all end up labeled as terrorists or traitors and any slim chance of getting our gun rights back in the future would be gone as well as any chance of recruiting new people to our cause.

 

[jsgolfman]

I politely beg to differ that it is not abused and within the original intent/scope, as evidenced by these wise words from our founders:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546​

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constitutents." - James Madison, regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794​

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172​

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson​

 

[jsgolfman]

Sorry, hit post before I was through. I think we are debating semantics here. They are both abused and their application liberally interpreted. One thing about the commerce clause, if I may, though. From my research (and I am welcome to be corrected), one of the mitigating factors for the inclusion of the commerce clause was the protectionist trade barriers often erected by states as a result of a "gap", if you will, in the Articles of Confederation relating to the sovereignty of each of the states. So, I would say I agree with you in that it "regulates" how the states conduct commerce amongst themselves (in relation to removal of barriers to free markets). As you say, the applicability has definitely broadened to areas wholly foreign to commerce, but we have seen times when the SCOTUS has reigned in these rogue advances as evidenced by the Lopez decision on "gun free school zones". Unfortunately, these victories are few and far between. I think I place the welfare clause in the foremost place of infamy simply because its' scope, for lack of a better term, can be broadened much further than the commerce clause as it doesn't require the slightest hint of application to any particular process, policy or platitude to be used as a bludgeon.