Printable View
Just a minute ago, I read about how Montana (and a few other states) are proposing bills in which they don't recognize the federal governments gun legislation. If that type of legislation succeeds, is it possible that the 1986 machine gun ban could potentially be nullified in those states?
Short answer ??Quote:
Originally Posted by etep513
NOPE !
The text of the Montana Law ( and BTW its now LAW , signed by the Gov , not just a bill ) and every other States proposed similar bill specifically avoids saying anything about MG's. It's all about SBR's , Suppressor's ,etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by son of the revolution
+1 ... it's about all firearms except for MGs.
BTW .. the FFA are geared more toward 10th Amendment. They are just using firearms as a vehicle.
That doesn't mean that if they succeed, that a new bill can't be passed to allow MGs.
They probably left MGs out to help get more support. They probably feared that the bill will not go through with MGs in. One step at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo
Yea that sounds about right.
I swear to God. I promise you. If they did, if they just completely started ignoring federal firearms laws in entirety, I'd move to Montana. I shit you not. I would move there as soon as I possibly can. And right in the center of it too, so I'm no where near neighboring states.
Geeze think about it! No SBR/SBS/AOW hoops, no suppressor paperwork, no fingerprints, NOTHING... And machine guns? Holy crap that would make my life.
It'd be like a small slice of America in this anti-rights system we call the USA. Dare I dream.
so, basically, Montana is saying that the federal government still has the right to violate states' rights when it comes to machine guns?
It seems quite unwise to approach the states' rights issue from any other position than totality. Either gun regulation is entirely in the province of the state, or it is entirely in the province of the federal government (subject to the doctrine that states can always pass stronger laws if they wish).
I think that if they try to do this piecemeal, they'll get stomped in court.
Really, if they want to pursue the states' rights issue in its totality, they should pass a bill that says any product manufactured, sold, and possessed within the state is free from any federal regulation, including alcohol, tobacco, firearms (semis AND MGs), food, cars, and the multitude of other items that currently fall under federal regulation through bastardization of the ICC.
This should be about the unconstitutionality of using the ICC to regulate purely intrastate commerce, not about firearms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehidle
I agree. It SHOULD be any product. Unfortunately, it didn't happen that way and I don't see it going that way. Seems like they are taking the same setups used to take away our rights. Just slowly chipping away at it. A large move at once will scare the sheeple to much.
Most of the people are are just too logical. To be in the political arena, you have to defy logic :(
The NFA of 1934 and for that matter, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 are tax acts, not "legalities".
In the vast majority of states you can have all the NFA toys you can afford - as long as the fed taxes were paid.
OTOH, why no one challanges the marijuana laws by insisting on BUYING a tax stamp is unclear.
Regardless, we'll see peace in the Mid-East before we see the 86 MG ban overturned... There is no real skin in it for the mass public.
That and I'm willing to bet it has a lot to do with the fact that MANY connected and priviledged types in this country would lose a lot of property value in their "holdings", if suddenly Colt, Oly, Stag, etc could start building and selling us folks NFA ARs again, or Khar could sell us new NFA 1928 TSMGs.
The MJ tax act of 1937 was shot down by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional because it was a Catch 22. The way the act worked was as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by nfafan
In order to posses, you must purchase a tax stamp. In order to purchase a tax stamp you must submit the product which is to be taxed. Submitting it for the stamp though meant you had it without a stamp and thus broke the law. This was deemed a violation of the Fifth Amendement since the stamp would require individuals to incriminate themselves. Thus the Act was shutdown in 1969 in Leary vs. the US.
In reaction, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 was passed which repealed the 1937 MJ Act.
On the surface, it would appear that the DEA is a violation of Constitutional Separation of Powers. The DEA is a part of the executive branch, yet it is capable of declaring a substance illegal and dictating the punishment for possessing and/or selling such a substance. As an arm of the Executive Branch they are only allowed to enforce the law, they are not permitted to write or change laws; that's the job of the Legislative branch.
They get around this by having "schedules". The law as written and passed by Congress dictates that there are 5 "schedules" of drugs, and what possession/sale of each schedule means as far as legality is concerned. Adding and removing drugs from any of those schedules however is classified as "regulation" rather than "changing laws." As such, the DEA can make a drug illegal by "scheduling" it. The DEA can spontaneously legalize a drug by "unscheduling" it. This is technically legal, but in my eyes it is a hideous exploitation of a loophole in separation of powers.
In the end however, the Constitution clearly says that the Federal government may only supersede State government in UPHOLDING rights that the States may otherwise attempt to take away (allowing all citizens to vote regardless of age or race for example). Laws that restrict rights are therefore limited in jurisdiction to interstate commerce.
Thus, according to the Constitution, the DEA only has jurisdiction when drugs cross state borders. Believe it or not, this is actually how the laws are written. Each state has its own DEA, and their own state version of the drug schedules and Controlled Substance Act. Each and every state does. That's why even though the Federal government opposes it, NJ, California, and other states have made it legal to use MJ for medicinal purposes. What they have done there is wrote laws forcibly removing MJ from schedule 1 in those states. Importing MJ is still prohibited, but growing it within the state is regulated by that state.
While, this is talking about drugs, the same is actually supposed to apply to ALL things. It is exceedingly strange that the ATF has any jurisdiction or power within the states; it's actually quite unconstitutional for them to do so. It would however be legal for each state to have their own ATF which operates in the same capacity.
What makes you say that? It's possible that the law will be overturned eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by nfafan