The feds need to stay out of gun laws.

[firemanmark]

No firemanmark, I am not a prohibited person. I just spoke to an attorney today and I am clear. Maybe I was trying to strike up a discussion about the constitutionality of federal firearms laws based on the wording of the constitution and the principles of the 10th and 14th amendments. However, that is clearly beyond your comprehension. I have a degree in Political Science and such things fascinate me. If you lack the ability to have a "big people" discussion about such things please leave your moronic remarks to yourself.

Listen pal theres no reason for you to be such a jerk. In the very short amount of time that u have been a member here, u have started NUMEROUS threads all basically saying and complaining about the exact same thing and as I said earlier your post asking if the laws are actually enforced and how they are enforced read as though u were basically asking if its possible to get away with illegally possessing a firearm. Im about as fierce 2nd Amendment advocate as there Is so I dont agree with many of the firearms laws on the books,however I am also smart enough to realize that whining about them on an internet forum will change nothing, hence the reason I am very active in 2nd amendment issues both through grassroots efforts such as calling and letter writing to my elected officials ,as well as helping locally by staffing NRA tables at events, etc. I also volunteer my time as a firearms instructor teaching new shooters the ropes. By the way if you are clear to buy a weapon....congratulations.

Mark

[free]

Colorado and Washington told the feds to f*ck off when they legalized MJ. Why not do the same with guns?

CO and WA legalized pot for no other reason than to create a new source of tax revenue. It had nothing to do with state's rights, or COTUS, or telling the feds to fuck off, or anything else. It was purely about creating another "sin" tax.

Yes, they could tax the fuck out of firearms. The difference is that there is not enough volume there for such a tax to really be effective. Firearms are not consumable items (unless things go really poorly). Pot goes up in smoke, then you need to buy some more.

That's the difference.

[HKusp 45]

State rights vs. federal rights seems to be on the agenda for presidential candidates. Guns laws are a part of the conflict. There is a provision in the Constitution which allows the Gov't to deny individuals their voting privileges but nothing states that they can have their second amendment rights revoked. Also, as I stated before the wording and spirit of the second amendment needs to be taken into consideration. I need to look into what I can do to help influence a change at the federal level. It seems like some positive things have been brewing recently. Liberals got gay marriage so now they need to do something to make conservatives happy.

Good now let's apply that shit accordingly , if you do not pay taxes and utilize government resources that Are paid for by those that do, you should not be afforded the ability to vote. If you don't put in to the system you have no right to decide the fate of this nation and should not be able to affect those of us that do put money into it. You got your free ride..... that's all you get you want more be a productive member of society and earn it.

[IIIIIREPOIIIII]

So after much research I have discovered that most states support gun rights and allow people to get their rights restored. However, the feds have their own guidelines which trump state laws. I wonder if there is anyway to get the feds to reevaluate the gun control act of 1968 and the Brady act. States rights seem to be on the agenda among presidential candidates."The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If the word state is used in the second amendment than perhaps the founding fathers intended on leaving the issue in the hands of states and not the national gov't. I wonder if anyone has ever challenged the constitutionality of federal gun laws based on the wording of the second amendment? Colorado and Washington told the feds to f*ck off when they legalized MJ. Why not do the same with guns? I read some stuff online that certain states have made it illegal for state officials to enforce federal gun laws.

[knight0334]

State rights vs. federal rights seems to be on the agenda for presidential candidates. Guns laws are a part of the conflict. There is a provision in the Constitution which allows the Gov't to deny individuals their voting privileges but nothing states that they can have their second amendment rights revoked. Also, as I stated before the wording and spirit of the second amendment needs to be taken into consideration. I need to look into what I can do to help influence a change at the federal level. It seems like some positive things have been brewing recently. Liberals got gay marriage so now they need to do something to make conservatives happy.

Yes there is.

See the 5th Amendment. But granted, it must be through Due Process.

[jim-analog]

Greetings,

You may want to read Rep Matcalf's bill HB-357 "PA Right to Bear Arms Protection Act" and help get more support for it in the house. Here is a link to the text:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=0357&pn=0357

There is a newer version, but pretty sure it's essentially the same text.

Regards, Jim

[rwilson452]

I think we also need a supreme court case to clear up the level of scrutiny for the 2nd. It seems to me different courts apply different levels.

[R.A.D.]

hmm, funny... seems like InPa is no longer posting. lol, who would've saw THAT coming?

[InPa]

Ya, that guy was a real fruit loop.

[InPa]

Perhaps he has been busy and his chat forum activities have been placed on the back burner.