|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Firearms are tied up in "interstate commerce."
The "Necessary and Proper Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) -
"The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
"Commerce Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) -
Gives the U.S. Congress the power ". . . to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
The "Necessary and Proper Clause" has been paired with the "Commerce Clause" to provide the constitutional basis for a wide variety of federal laws.
Constitutional law is not my specialty (energy/utilities law is) but this is just some basic stuff.
Hope that makes sense. In a nutshell, both the "Necessary and Proper Clause" and "Commerce Clause" give the federal government broad power to regulate anything involving interstate commerce - and firearms unequivocally fall into the interstate commerce basket.
So while the Constitution does not necessarily specifically enumerate all of the federal government's powers, it does have critical sections which are written very broadly/generically, in turn giving the federal government vast and sweeping power.
Last edited by zibby43; 12-24-15 at 04:06.
"In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" 26 Inf
"We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18
They had an agenda from the start. The supreme Court gave a thumbs up to the alien and sedition acts even earlier which were intended to keep John Adams in office by making it an offense to criticize Adams in any way. Care to explain how that doesn't abridge freedom of speech?
Last edited by JasonB1; 12-24-15 at 07:40.
You can argue all you like about Constitutional intent, in the end if you choose to go in to the business of manufacturing guns you might want to sit that aside and deal with the here and now.
You don't like the rules, don't play the game and yes I agree it is a game. I would guess if you have a question about the rules you can always invite the ATF to come in and give a courtesy inspection to show you the meaning and intent right there in your factory. I'm sure they would be happy to come and take a look for you, that being said, you had better have your ducks in a row before they get there.
Stag had F/A capable guns on the premises that were to go to a Filipino P.D., when the deal fell through, they should have notified the ATF and took the appropriate steps to make it known and take action to be within regulation, clearly they didn't.
This, being after having their hands slapped in '07, they should have known better. Stupid games with stupid people win you a stupid prize. That's the modern reality.
Jefferson and Adams aren't going to show up at your hearing and set it all right with the Fed's. It's the modern reality of the business, if you don't like it stay out of the business.
How exactly are We, The People, supposed to fully exercise our Right, and Duty, to throw off a tyrannical Government, and to provide new Guards for our future security, with registered, serialized, and neutered weapons?
Adams and the other Federalists(the party that became the Whigs and eventually the Republicans) would not have any problems with over reaching government. Jefferson apparently would have.
Quite a difference between recognizing it is how it is and calling it legit. Germans from 70 years ago shoveling Zyklon pellets was how it was (and probably more legal under German law than this nonsense ever has been), but just because they were doing it under color of authority does not change the fact of how wrong it was.
Last edited by JasonB1; 12-24-15 at 11:29.
Honestly, thinking about it critically, our main power and defense is the citizen soldier and the independent nature of our people. There are enough serving officers, NCO's and troops at any one time who understand the Constitution and the oath they took that widespread attacks on the citizens and confiscation would be a non starter. That is true now and into the near future, far future, it depends on how the world evolves.
On an emotional basis, I would like NFA to go away. On a cognitive basis, I've never been down with the 'if you can afford anything, iyou can have anything' mindset. My concern is not with full auto weapons and silencers, my concern is that most folks can't simply afford to buy MBT's, SAMS, attack aircraft, etc. so we could be at the mercy of evil minded individuals or organizations who mean us harm.
Think of the richest folks in America with standing armies, not security forces, armies with tanks, air defense artillery, attack aircraft and fighters. As long as they were for the citizens it would be okay, but, to me, it is bad enough the government has that power, much less the Koch Brothers, George Sorros, Warren Buffet, or Bill and Melinda Gates.
Those are my thoughts FWIW.
The whole Sabre thing "stank" and we mainly are hearing the gov's side. But who knows, aspects were fishy, especially the international aspect.
That said, at the heart of the sabre mess was unserialized receivers, inaccurate logs, etc, and NFA "machine gun" parts. In that regard, similar to Stag.
The ATF has enough history of aggressive enforcement that I'll give mfgs benefit of doubt until proven otherwise. I know enough smaller FFL's harassed out of existence based on interpretation, not law. Ex: invalidating 4473s based on abbreviation of the state, or not. (I know FFL's who have been hammered one way or the other, clearly contradictory directions by the ATF.)
Last edited by JasonB1; 12-24-15 at 15:05.
Bookmarks