state sovereignty and the gun laws

[dtc6776]

i have a question about the states that declare sovereignty. will that allow them to pass or follow there own laws on the 2nd? reason i'm asking is with the full auto ban the gun must be pre 1986 but that is a federal rule so if the state you live in declares sovereignty then would the full auto fall to the state law? if so and they just followed the fed rules and didn't there own on the books would it be possible to own them post 1986 registered if they had no rule on the books in that state? out west where they still belive in the 2nd would it be possible for them to set there own full auto rules.could they use it to restrict guns like full auto or semi auto. also what about the criminal check would it still work? food for though

[knight0334]

i have a question about the states that declare sovereignty. will that allow them to pass or follow there own laws on the 2nd? reason i'm asking is with the full auto ban the gun must be pre 1986 but that is a federal rule so if the state you live in declares sovereignty then would the full auto fall to the state law? if so and they just followed the fed rules and didn't there own on the books would it be possible to own them post 1986 registered if they had no rule on the books in that state? out west where they still belive in the 2nd would it be possible for them to set there own full auto rules.could they use it to restrict guns like full auto or semi auto. also what about the criminal check would it still work? food for though

State sovereignty will have no positive effect on machinegun laws.

When it comes to anything that went across state lines in the manufacture of machineguns, the feds will be allowed to regulate it. Since interstate commerce is something Congress is Constitutionally allowed to regulate, the Supremacy Clause will hold the state and state laws subservient.


The only way machineguns, and their production, will ever be allowed is if the federal government removes their prohibitions. In some form or manner - parts, materials, funds, or intellectual rights cross state lines in the manufacture of just about everything.

[General Geoff]

By declaring sovereignty, the states can and should ignore any federal laws they see as infringing on their peoples' rights, and in that sense, there is a huge conflict between federal/supreme court precedent and what is "legal." When it comes to two sovereign entities arguing over who's correct, well, war is often the decisive factor.

When you get down to it, Might Makes Right.

[knight0334]

By declaring sovereignty, the states can and should ignore any federal laws they see as infringing on their peoples' rights, and in that sense, there is a huge conflict between federal/supreme court precedent and what is "legal." When it comes to two sovereign entities arguing over who's correct, well, war is often the decisive factor.

When you get down to it, Might Makes Right.

They will have to secede to be free of the lawful federal laws. As part of the union the states are subject to the Constitutional laws allowed in Article I: piracy, felonies on the high seas, counterfeiting, coin/currency, interstate commerce, and treason(and a couple other little things).

So long as it crosses state lines in the course of commerce, and the states are part of the union - you are shit out of luck.

[RoyJackson]

Now, if a state declares sovereignty and those machine guns were manufactured and sold within that state...where would the feds be?
Manufacturing machine guns for one state's population probably wouldn't be economcally viable, of course. Modifying semi-auto's might be though...

This post is totally frivolous, of course.

[knight0334]

Now, if a state declares sovereignty and those machine guns were manufactured and sold within that state...where would the feds be?
Manufacturing machine guns for one state's population probably wouldn't be economcally viable, of course. Modifying semi-auto's might be though...

This post is totally frivolous, of course.

Every bit of that gun, and any funds involved, will have to originate and stay within the said state. Iron ore? Aluminum? Materials for the plastics? Screws/bolts? Springs? ....every bit of that gun would have to originate within that state including all raw materials.


This has already been to the US Circuit courts up in Montana, Utah or one of the Dakota's. If any bit of something crosses state lines, it can be regulated constitutionally by the Fed's from there on out.

[LittleRedToyota]

So long as it crosses state lines in the course of commerce, and the states are part of the union - you are shit out of luck.

well...since we are into the world of theory and not practical reality here already...

if you actually read what the "commerce clause" says, it doesn't even really give the federal government the right to regulate "interstate commerce". rather, it says "commerce among the several states".

a literal reading of this could easily lead to the conclusion that it means "when one state is engaged in commerce with another state". that reading does not include "when an individual who resides in one state is engaged in commerce with an individual who resides in another state". rather, it means when a state, acting as a state, is engaged in commerce with another state that is also acting as a state, the federal government has the authority to regulate that commerce...but that is it.

of course, returning to our regularly scheduled real world, the courts manage to read it as saying "when an individual creates something from scratch entirely within his own home--using raw materials that never crossed any state lines or possibly even property lines--and that something never leaves his home, the federal government has the authority to regulate that something" so...

i am still waiting for the day when local authorities somewhere actually stand up to armed federal invasions, but, so far it hasn't happened, and i doubt it will anytime soon. (prime example being california and medical marijuana: the state declared it legal but the feds sent in the DEA to bust the growers. the state said the growers were legal and nothing ever crossed state lines...but the local authorities would not actually step in to defend the legal growers when federal agents came and kidnapped them at gunpoint...nor would they arrest and prosecute the kidnappers.)

[tl_3237]

The states are not declaring sovereignty - they are reaffirming it (they never lost it).

A major irritant that has brought us to this point is the incessant stretching and perverting the interstate commerce powers of the Federal government. You don't have to look far to see how the Feds have twisted the IC power into an excuse to do almost anything. Some obvious examples of gun laws that are imposed on the states through their IC misapplicatoin are:

Gun Free School Zones (18 USC 922(q)) and LEOSA (18 USC 926B)

18 USC 922 (q)
(1) The Congress finds and declares that—
(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;
(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;
(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;
(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;
(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;
(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;
(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;
(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and
(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.

18 USC 926B (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

992(q)(1)(G) is a REAL STRETCH and a great example of the IC powers gone awry.


Using this non-existant authority they tell the states how and when citizens can carry a gun in the vicinity of property totally within the state and allow a large group of non state citizens the ability to carry weapons within the state nothwithstanding the laws of that state [not meant to be anti-LEO; example only]. Their justification - that the gun, or one of its parts, or some of its raw materials or tooling to make the gun, part, or mine the raw material, ... (ad nauseum) moved at some point in its lifetime between two states. Well that applies to just about any commercial product that exists.

The states are saying, and Montana said it best, the Feds were empowered to regulate IC while something was actually going interstate for the purpose of FACILITATING that cross border business. Once that item reaches a destination state the IC powers of the Fed cease and issues regarding that item is solely an intrastate matter.

Similarly the tactic of the Feds holding $$ hostage to force states to kowtow to their wishes by passing state laws to the Fed's liking is obscene since the Feds got that money from the states to begin with.

What we have experienced in the past 100 years is just what the founding fathers have tried to avoid - an omnipresent, omnipotent Federal government usurping powers one by one from the states. The Constitution was created to reign in the Feds but, with the state's acquiescence, their power envelope has been continually expanding to the detriment of state and individual rights.

Thankfully some states have gotten the wiser and a new wave of states rights is fomenting.


[descend soapbox] [rant off] [Valium seek mode]

[General Geoff]

This has already been to the US Circuit courts up in Montana, Utah or one of the Dakota's. If any bit of something crosses state lines, it can be regulated constitutionally by the Fed's from there on out.

Just because the federal courts say something is constitutional doesn't mean it is. If the courts said the first amendment only applies to licensed and government-approved news outlets, would you consider that constitutional?

[knight0334]

Lets say the states reaffirm sovereignty.. Tell me how that would change any laws forbidding the manufacture of full automatics or conversion of guns to auto? It wont, it will still be illegal.

The only way for it to become legal will be the deregulation at the federal level, or to secede and be free of the Supremacy Clause, or to forcibly remove federal officers/agents from the state. States have made possession of small amounts of certain narcotics legal, but if busted by a federal agent you will still face federal charges.

The State of Montana wanted auto's to be legal, but even with their own sovereignty and inhibition to enforce NFA laws it still remains illegal on the federal level.