Fed Judge Rules Against Firearms Freedom Laws

[mrjarrell]

In a move that was sure to surprise absolutely no-one, a fed judge has rule against the Firearms Freedom Acts enacted by Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. Now it moves up the ladder and will eventually land in the laps of the SCOTUS. They, of course will rule against the states. The only question that will remain after that is "what now?".

Federal judge dismisses states' gun suit

 

[Vasili]

Then we beg them one last time to please reconsider.

And then we change history. or we become slaves forever.

the choice is ours.

 

[Expat]

I wouldn't count SCOTUS out yet. We have some good gun opinions. I can also imagine a couple of our Justices being willing to reconsider some of the interstate commerce powers of the Feds. Don't count out the Robert's Court yet. THose guys have shown they want to lay down some new law on guns.

 

[mrjarrell]

I wouldn't count SCOTUS out yet. We have some good gun opinions. I can also imagine a couple of our Justices being willing to reconsider some of the interstate commerce powers of the Feds. Don't count out the Robert's Court yet. THose guys have shown they want to lay down some new law on guns.

The problem is that this is only marginally about guns. It is primarily about the 10th Amendment and the abuse of the Commerce Clause. The courts have almost always come down in favour of the congress when it comes to that and I have no faith that they'll do anything differently, even on the Roberts court.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The problem is that this is only marginally about guns. It is primarily about the 10th Amendment and the abuse of the Commerce Clause. The courts have almost always come down in favour of the congress when it comes to that and I have no faith that they'll do anything differently, even on the Roberts court.

It has nothing to do with guns or the 10th Amendment. In order to prevail the states have to argue that SCOTUS set aside 220 years of federalism, 150 years of case law interpreting the Commerce clause, and the thousands of federal laws that rely on that interpretation. An interpretation that allowed the establishment of hunders of federal angencies and departments, millions of jobs, and trillions in tax collections. Do not think for a second that justices are non-partisan. Most of them may have had no record of partisanship, but they're not a single Preident who nominated a single justice that did not believe that justice would rule the President's way while on the Court.

While I would love these laws be upheld, they won't. Too much power to give up.

 

[E5RANGER375]

It has nothing to do with guns or the 10th Amendment. In order to prevail the states have to argue that SCOTUS set aside 220 years of federalism, 150 years of case law interpreting the Commerce clause, and the thousands of federal laws that rely on that interpretation. An interpretation that allowed the establishment of hunders of federal angencies and departments, millions of jobs, and trillions in tax collections. Do not think for a second that justices are non-partisan. Most of them may have had no record of partisanship, but they're not a single Preident who nominated a single justice that did not believe that justice would rule the President's way while on the Court.

While I would love these laws be upheld, they won't. Too much power to give up.

^^^ you hit it on the head

 

[Eddie]

It boils down to a group of federal employees voting on the power of the federal government. Oh the irony!

 

[Vasili]

It boils down to a group of federal employees voting on the power of the federal government. Oh the irony!

and three guesses on how THEY'RE gonna vote.

should i make myself obsolete or not, the atf asks itself.

 

[Joe Williams]

"What now" = secession.

It's almost certain to happen, very possibly before 2012. The big question for me is... what will happen next?

 

[Joe Williams]

I wouldn't count SCOTUS out yet. We have some good gun opinions. I can also imagine a couple of our Justices being willing to reconsider some of the interstate commerce powers of the Feds. Don't count out the Robert's Court yet. THose guys have shown they want to lay down some new law on guns.

This isn't about guns. Guns are merely the excuse. This is an issue of states' rights, and the sovereignty the Constitution grants the states. It's an issue of the Feds illegally seizing power, and operating outside the bounds of law. If the courts will not enforce the Constitution, we no longer have a legitimate Federal government.

I pray SCOTUS will bear that in mind.

 

[PatriotPride]

It has nothing to do with guns or the 10th Amendment. In order to prevail the states have to argue that SCOTUS set aside 220 years of federalism, 150 years of case law interpreting the Commerce clause, and the thousands of federal laws that rely on that interpretation. An interpretation that allowed the establishment of hunders of federal angencies and departments, millions of jobs, and trillions in tax collections. Do not think for a second that justices are non-partisan. Most of them may have had no record of partisanship, but they're not a single Preident who nominated a single justice that did not believe that justice would rule the President's way while on the Court.

While I would love these laws be upheld, they won't. Too much power to give up.

It boils down to a group of federal employees voting on the power of the federal government. Oh the irony!

and three guesses on how THEY'RE gonna vote.

should i make myself obsolete or not, the atf asks itself.

"What now" = secession.

It's almost certain to happen, very possibly before 2012. The big question for me is... what will happen next?

This isn't about guns. Guns are merely the excuse. This is an issue of states' rights, and the sovereignty the Constitution grants the states. It's an issue of the Feds illegally seizing power, and operating outside the bounds of law. If the courts will not enforce the Constitution, we no longer have a legitimate Federal government.

I pray SCOTUS will bear that in mind.

All this. Balkanization is bound to happen, and the only question is WHEN the schism will occur. This is quite possibly the most important case of our time.

 

[Lobo]

All this. Balkanization is bound to happen, and the only question is WHEN the schism will occur. This is quite possibly the most important case of our time.

I seriously doubt that any such thing will happen. Most people are too comfortable in their lives, despite their rumblings about government power. The only way anything will ever change is complete economic collapse, and I don't see that happening, either.

 

[Joe Williams]

I seriously doubt that any such thing will happen. Most people are too comfortable in their lives, despite their rumblings about government power. The only way anything will ever change is complete economic collapse, and I don't see that happening, either.

Have you researched how many people supported independence from Britain, vs how many were comfortable with staying loyal subjects of the King?

Hint... the former group was a distinct minority among colonists.

 

[Lobo]

Have you researched how many people supported independence from Britain, vs how many were comfortable with staying loyal subjects of the King?

Hint... the former group was a distinct minority among colonists.

Completely different times, and completely different people. They blew a fuse over a tea tax. We have quietly allowed almost half of our income to go to taxes, without true representation, for a long time. I fail to see how this particular court decision is some kind of straw that will break the camel's back.

Besides that, there is no effective militia these days, and convincing people to fire on their own countrymen is a heck of a lot harder than convincing people to fire on the king's army. Any comparison between the our country in the late 1700's and our country today is an intellectually dishonest exercise in hyperbole. This is not your great, great, great, great grandfather's America.

 

[Joe Williams]

Completely different times, and completely different people. They blew a fuse over a tea tax. We have quietly allowed almost half of our income to go to taxes, without true representation, for a long time. I fail to see how this particular court decision is some kind of straw that will break the camel's back.

Besides that, there is no effective militia these days, and convincing people to fire on their own countrymen is a heck of a lot harder than convincing people to fire on the king's army. Any comparison between the our country in the late 1700's and our country today is an intellectually dishonest exercise in hyperbole. This is not your great, great, great, great grandfather's America.

Not as different as you may believe. The Tea Tax was merely one in a long string of issues used to generate enough support for the Revolution. The build up to the actual war took a couple decades. The militia then wasn't much more than it is today, a group of armed citizens hanging out together, many without formal training. Actually, citizens who have chosen to get together and form groups today may have more training. You are also choosing to ignore the fact that those colonists were, in fact, firing on their own countrymen.

 

[Lobo]

Not as different as you may believe. The Tea Tax was merely one in a long string of issues used to generate enough support for the Revolution. The build up to the actual war took a couple decades. The militia then wasn't much more than it is today, a group of armed citizens hanging out together, many without formal training. Actually, citizens who have chosen to get together and form groups today may have more training. You are also choosing to ignore the fact that those colonists were, in fact, firing on their own countrymen.

But the issues that led to the revolution do not exist today, in the same manner. There is no quartering of soldiers. (That was a big one) There has been no massacre of citizens by the US government, unless you count Waco, and that is widely considered to be the fault of a wacko and his followers by most of the general public. Taxes were the big issue back then, and today's taxes far exceed what the colonists put up with. The British confiscated citizens' arms without due process. Today, most states recognize the right to carry, and laws have even been passed to prevent confiscation of arms during emergencies, after the BS that happened with hurricane Katrina.

The times are so much different today, that I don't think an uprising or split between states is even remotely possible. Firing on British troops from across the Atlantic is quite different than firing on your neighbor because you disagree on the commerce clause.

 

[PatriotPride]

Have you researched how many people supported independence from Britain, vs how many were comfortable with staying loyal subjects of the King?

Hint... the former group was a distinct minority among colonists.

This. As was stated in another thread, if even 1/2 of the government BS happened in the past 10 years as opposed to 50, people would be in the streets as we speak. The wrongs would be righted.

The issue is no different. Taxation without representation in nearly all aspects of life, forced confiscation of arms in some cases (but they're isolated incidents, right?), and in many states it is damn near IMPOSSIBLE to be "allowed" to carry a firearm off your property. This is the tip of the iceberg.

God bless Amerika.

The government has proven that it will CONTINUALLY overstep it's bounds. The SCOTUS is a joke, our POTUS is a joke, our CONGRESS is a joke. The only thing is, I'm not laughing. I'm seething. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!", to borrow from a famous movie.

The "militia" then was worse off than now. Now, we have a multitude of persons with prior military training. Now, despite unConstitutional regulation and registration, we have weapons FAR more advanced, and we know how to use them. The list goes on.

Everyone has their breaking point. The colonists, praise God, had theirs, and they did something about it. I can tell you that many in this nation are fast approaching theirs. I can only stand by and watch this nation be destroyed for so long before I feel duty-bound to do something about it.

Besides, we have already Balkanized, it's just not official. The East Coast has clearly gone off the deep end. They view the Constitution as little more than toilet paper. The West Coast? California? It's practically another country. The politicians in DC have CLEARLY lost their minds. Arizona has been abandoned...no, worse---they've been MOCKED and hung out to dry by our Socialist POTUS. Other states have boycotted them...is there any doubt that Arizona feels as though it's been abandoned?

You can crap on my head for only so long before I realize that you're lying and it is not, in fact, chocolate. You can bet that when I figure this out, I'll be mad as hell and ready to do something about it.

 

[PatriotPride]

Completely different times, and completely different people. They blew a fuse over a tea tax. We have quietly allowed almost half of our income to go to taxes, without true representation, for a long time. I fail to see how this particular court decision is some kind of straw that will break the camel's back.

Besides that, there is no effective militia these days, and convincing people to fire on their own countrymen is a heck of a lot harder than convincing people to fire on the king's army. Any comparison between the our country in the late 1700's and our country today is an intellectually dishonest exercise in hyperbole. This is not your great, great, great, great grandfather's America.

Perhaps there are people who are not asleep at the wheel, people who have not "given up". This court decision represents the struggle between the government's illegal and out of control power-grabbing, and the rights of the States.

The colonists DID, in fact, fire on their own countrymen. They were also fired upon BY their own countrymen. It becomes a moot point---tyranny is tyranny, whether by countrymen or foreigners.

It is NOT a dishonest example. What people fail to grasp is that this country SHOULD be as the Founder's imagined it, but it is not. We as a nation have deviated TERRIBLY from the Constitution. With all due respect, it is IRRELEVANT if this country is the same country as it was at it's founding. The point is that the nation is NOT how it should be, and it SHOULD be how it was at it's founding. Prior generations did little to stop it. Perhaps this generation will.

 

[esigler]

The commerce clause is in a long line of misinterpreted constitutional amendments! Like separation of church and state, still looking for that one? But if they took congress's power away with the commerce clause? I just don't see that one happening. The founders would be amazed at what we have become!

 

[Lobo]

Perhaps there are people who are not asleep at the wheel, people who have not "given up". This court decision represents the struggle between the government's illegal and out of control power-grabbing, and the rights of the States.

The colonists DID, in fact, fire on their own countrymen. They were also fired upon BY their own countrymen. It becomes a moot point---tyranny is tyranny, whether by countrymen or foreigners.

It is NOT a dishonest example. What people fail to grasp is that this country SHOULD be as the Founder's imagined it, but it is not. We as a nation have deviated TERRIBLY from the Constitution. With all due respect, it is IRRELEVANT if this country is the same country as it was at it's founding. The point is that the nation is NOT how it should be, and it SHOULD be how it was at it's founding. Prior generations did little to stop it. Perhaps this generation will.

How this country should be? According to who?

The founding fathers were human, just like you and I. Although the Constitution is a great document, and filled with wisdom, it is not perfect. Had they seen the damage that career politicians cause, they would have certainly included term limits for ALL elected offices in federal government. Women would have had the right to vote from the very beginning, and blacks would not have had to fight to be more than 3/5 of a person.

Government tyranny? George Washington himself sent 13,000 militia to suppress the a rebellion in 1794 by citizens who had attacked federal excise officers over a tax on whiskey. Some citizens were killed, some were arrested, and in the end, the federal government won and the tax collected.

My point? NEVER in our history has this country been the perfect place where every man was free, without deviation or an unpopular interpretation of the Constitution. Perhaps the founding fathers meant to govern well, but they DID mean to govern. State governments were no different. Laws prohibiting concealed carry were in existence as early as the early 1800's. Heck, Georgia banned the sale of pistols and bowie knives in 1837! This was later struck down in the state supreme court (Nunn v. State) but not until 1846.

Our country has been in varying states of turmoil since its inception. I don't see much today that is any different than the bickering that has been going on for the last 230+ years. I certainly don't see anything that will spark some kind of uprising. As much as some of you apparently hope for such a thing, you had better be careful what you wish for. Who is to say that your political ideology will come out on top?