IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov
XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.california
XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.obama, alt.revisionism
XPost: alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.immigration
XPost: alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns, misc.survivalism
XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.survival
From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.
BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov
On 5/5/2015 2:47 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty NETWORK@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov> wrote in
> news:4s72x.14425$fU6.4621@fx04.iad:
>
>> On 5/5/2015 1:42 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote in
>>> news:1a798$5548f309$414e828e$15456@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2015 9:09 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> "max headroom" wrote in
>>>>> news:mi8reg$12j$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsA49080E156D4CHopewell@216.166.97.131:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "max headroom" wrote in
>>>>>>> news:mi8h1a$lje$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:XnsA4906E05023A1Hopewell@216.166.97.131:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "max headroom" wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:mi6cpk$ksa$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RD Sandman wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:XnsA48F6F3CD8C69Hopewell@216.166.97.131:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> First Post wrote
> in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:jinckahjtrpp9v7gffoervtp19ku2bo48k@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Funny how couples have gotten married for centuries with as
>>>>>>>>>>>> little effort as declaring themselves to be married with no
>>>>>>>>>>>> government involvement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But nowadays, especially in America, people believe that if
>>>>>>>>>>>> the state doesn't officially sanction something then it
> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. Leftists in particular believe this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't that the coupling doesn't exist. It is the legal
>>>>>>>>>>> (or government) recognition of it that does. One needn't be
>>>>>>>>>>> married in or by a church, but one does tend to need that
>>>>>>>>>>> license and recognition in a court of law or for government
>>>>>>>>>>> benefits.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the purchase of a license is required, how can it be
>>>>>>>>>> considered a "right"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Purchase of that license is to recieve government benefits like
>>>>>>>>> joint income tax filing, probate proceedings, etc. It is to
>>>>>>>>> allow the government to recognize the union. The people
> involved
>>>>>>>>> will recognize it without the piece of paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Isn't that a violation of the 14th amendment, similar to a poll
>>>>>>>> tax?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not, IMHO, it is for governmental recognition that you are due
> that
>>>>>>> particular benefit....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I am due that benefit, isn't it a violation to require a
> payment?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... Same reason the government can insist that you
>>>>>>> receive a background check if you purchase via an FFL,
>>>>>
>>>>> One way to look at that is NOT that the government requires you to
>>>>> have a background check, it simply requires that the FFL run one on
>>>>> all transfers they are involved with. The FFL works for the
>>>>> Executive Branch and can be told what to do, you don't.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely why background checks are not, in any way, a violation of
>>>> the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement to get the
>>>> background check is imposed on the seller.
>>
>> Then a person can't be arrested for a gun that's NOT obtained through
> an
>> FFL dealer.
>
> You can if you are a prohibited possessor or the transfer crossed state
> lines or if state laws forbid the purchase or transfer of that make and
> model of firearm. The difference is whether you violated state laws or
> federal laws.
>
> And if it isn't interstate commerce then the FFL is NOT
>> part of the process.
>
> All sales of new or used guns via an FFL are interstate commerce.
>
>>>> In the same vein, limitations on magazines and types of guns
> available
>>>> for legal sale also are not a violation of the right to keep and bear
>>>> arms. You have a right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't
>>>> translate to a right to force the types and capacities of arms you
>>>> would like to be available for sale.
>>
>> Then again the commerce laws and the FFL can't be used for home made
>
> This theory is currently being tested in a couple of states where the gun
> is manufactured within the state and only sold to a state resident.
>
> or
>> in State purchases.
>
> In state sales for new or used guns via a dealer require a background
> check by the dealer. Personal part transfers between two private
> citizens do not....however, thos will not be new guns but ones in the
> secondary market.
>
>> FFL is a Federal Firearms License, and there is no Federal power to
>> limit guns, and the commerce clause is NOT for regulating in State
>> commerce or a lack of commerce.
>
> The Commerce Clause covers just about anything that could affect
> interstate sales.
I see the word *effect* in your statement, can you point that out in the
commerce clause? You contend that things that effect commerce which may
NOT be commerce at all.... could be a volcano. Can you honestly say
that a volcano can be regulated by the interstate commerce clause?
Then there is the latest Supreme court decision on (ACA) ObamaCare where
Justice Roberts says that NON commerce is *not* able to be regulated
under the commerce clause. That would prevent the use of the commerce
clause to be used to regulate a plastic gun you make for your self that
is NOT commerce and it prevents the regulation of all other NON commerce
that may *effect* commerce.
It in essence limits the commerce clause to regulating actual commerce
and NOT allowing it to regulate NON commerce that may "effect" commerce.
It has all change thanks to the Liberals and their blind ambition to
force America to accept their own Socialist health care system. The
unintended consequences of Liberalism strike again. The Liberals shot
themselves in the foot
--
That's Karma
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
