Federal override of state restrictions..........

[Varmint]

The Courts are now so partisan that they feel free to interpret the US Constitution as each court sees fit.

There are a lot of gray areas, and that is by design, as the founding fathers intended. The whole system is designed to keep one branch from gaining too much power.

You’re proposing more power to the Feds, exactly what they didn’t want.

 

[1sern]

If

Pretzel logic is how in 1974 SCOTUS said look right here, abortion is covered, sorta, kinda.....well...read between the lines.

I like pretzels, big hot ones go good with a lager.

Now if you go look at the Constitution you'll find feds have authority over interstate commerce and it's been the the wedge that has been used to get into many areas. Go Look at Gonzales v Raich where homegrown pot for medicinal purposes could be outlawed bc it had an effect on the interstate commerce of pot, yes illegal pot. Same ideas were seen in US v Stewart for a 1 off homemade mg that was not sold, nor taken across state lines affecting interstate commerce. So I will say that I think barring states from prohibiting firearms is not just in line with 2A but is also much closer to the fed's interstate commerce authority than other laws they've made. HTH

 

[HARRYM]

This would be good if:

1). SCOTUS rules that AWB bans violate the constitution.
2). Federal law prevent them from trying to add it back in again.
3). If ATF were a real agency they would arrest and imprison blue state legislators and governors for violation of the federal laws. It would only take 1 or 2 in prison and the democrats would have to give up the easy campaign cash.

4). If you starve democrats then it will be extremely difficult for them to win elections because the campaign cash is easy money. The nuttier left wing ones will pick up their ball and go home.

There has to be real pain for the dick sucking Bloomberg addicted democrats otherwise they'll just flail over and over again.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If some don't like it, go get 3/4s of the States to vote to strike that from the Constitution.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

The Courts are now so partisan that they feel free to interpret the US Constitution as each court sees fit.

I mentioned this the other day to the four boxes diner on X that what good are courts in the first circuit if the outcome is already predetermined in advance? How is anyone going to get a shot at justice? Criminal justice is no longer about crime if outcomes and expectations of guilt or innocence are predetermined.

This is why I advocate so strongly to fire and remove from the payroll as many federal workers as possible and that includes clerks for judges. The judge themself does the research not handing it off like it's a classroom assignment when in reality it's someone's life hanging in the balance.

 

[HARRYM]

There are a lot of gray areas, and that is by design, as the founding fathers intended. The whole system is designed to keep one branch from gaining too much power.

You’re proposing more power to the Feds, exactly what they didn’t want.

Again, you are ignoring the Bill of Rights already exists, we aren't providing more power for anything.

 

[HARRYM]

I mentioned this the other day to the four boxes diner on X that what good are courts in the first circuit if the outcome is already predetermined in advance? How is anyone going to get a shot at justice? Criminal justice is no longer about crime if outcomes and expectations of guilt or innocence are predetermined.

This is why I advocate so strongly to fire and remove from the payroll as many federal workers as possible and that includes clerks for judges. The judge themself does the research not handing it off like it's a classroom assignment when in reality it's someone's life hanging in the balance.

If you want to drastically shrink the size of Government count me in.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

If some don't like it, go get 3/4s of the States to vote to strike that from the Constitution.

Do you think if SCOTUS struck down the AWB that the MA pols are going to take that lying down? They add taxes, permitting requirements, etc etc trying to chip away at Bruen and hoping to set a precedent somewhere.

The only thing that will stop nutty MA pols is prison. Then it will stop.

 

[CMEBoston]

People
The government or state doesn’t give you the rights outlined in the constitution, the higher power does.

Abortion isn’t a constitutionally protected right

Carry on with your ring yank

 

[HARRYM]

Do you think if SCOTUS struck down the AWB that the MA pols are going to take that lying down? They add taxes, permitting requirements, etc etc trying to chip away at Bruen and hoping to set a precedent somewhere.

The only thing that will stop nutty MA pols is prison. Then it will stop.

I am saddened by SCOTUS unwillingness to step in and act more forcefully. We have allowed the erosion of our God given rights, and out Constitutional rights, to be watered down over a long period of time to the point where some don't realize the dangerous drift.

 

[HARRYM]

If

I like pretzels, big hot ones go good with a lager.

Now if you go look at the Constitution you'll find feds have authority over interstate commerce and it's been the the wedge that has been used to get into many areas. Go Look at Gonzales v Raich where homegrown pot for medicinal purposes could be outlawed bc it had an effect on the interstate commerce of pot, yes illegal pot. Same ideas were seen in US v Stewart for a 1 off homemade mg that was not sold, nor taken across state lines affecting interstate commerce. So I will say that I think barring states from prohibiting firearms is not just in line with 2A but is also much closer to the fed's interstate commerce authority than other laws they've made. HTH

It's still pretzel logic. It also prevents States from impeding inter-state commerce. And depending on the polarity of the courts looking at the 14th were are constantly told look, squint your eyes, its right here.

 

[Varmint]

I think saying the states can't ban firearms comes a lot closer to interstate commerce than abortion or homegrown pot

The Supreme Court can already do this. So why does the federal government need to be able to do this?

If you don’t like your state’s laws, move. If you don’t like the federal government’s laws, and they have the power to overrule the states, you’re focked. Stop giving more power to the federal government.

 

[Varmint]

I am saddened by SCOTUS unwillingness to step in and act more forcefully. We have allowed the erosion of our God given rights, and out Constitutional rights, to be watered down over a long period of time to the point where some don't realize the dangerous drift.

So we’re turning to the federal government to help us? Did you hit your head on something?

 

[HARRYM]

The Supreme Court can already do this. So why does the federal government need to be able to do this?

If you don’t like your state’s laws, move. If you don’t like the federal government’s laws, and they have the power to overrule the states, you’re focked. Stop giving more power to the federal government.

How does one move away from the Bill of Rights?

Asking for a friend......

 

[HARRYM]

So we’re turning to the federal government to help us? Did you hit your head on something?

So, requesting SCOTUS stops states from effing with the bill of rights is wrong?

 

[Varmint]

Again, you are ignoring the Bill of Rights already exists, we aren't providing more power for anything.

You don’t get it. The federal government can change the Bill of Rights.

 

[Varmint]

So, requesting SCOTUS stops states from effing with the bill of rights is wrong?

Is that what you’re proposing? Requesting?

 

[HARRYM]

Is it me or do we or do we not have a Bill of Rights in this country?

I may have hit my head on something last night so I'm not sure......

 

[HARRYM]

You don’t get it. The federal government can change the Bill of Rights.

Holy shit dude, that is 100% false.

 

[1sern]

The Supreme Court can already do this. So why does the federal government need to be able to do this?

If you don’t like your state’s laws, move. If you don’t like the federal government’s laws, and they have the power to overrule the states, you’re focked. Stop giving more power to the federal government.

LOL I'm not. Go read the Constitution. Interstate commerce is one of the powers given to congress, and they can tell states you can't sell manual transmission vehicles or they can tell states you can't ban firearms under their constitutionally given power (never mind the 2A arguments that should prevent states from doing it)

 

[HARRYM]

I need to get shoveling but in the interim I am requesting everyone read up on EXACTLY how, and the process thereof, as to how the Bill of Rights can be altered/changed.

 

[Varmint]

How does one move away from the Bill of Rights?

Asking for a friend......

And when your Congress adds abortion rights and drug use rights to the Bill of Rights via amendment, and then removes all the state bans, will you get it then?

 

[HARRYM]

And when your Congress adds abortion rights and drug use rights to the Bill of Rights via amendment, and then removes all the state bans, will you get it then?

Speaking of getting hit on the head.....

 

[Varmint]

Speaking of getting hit on the head.....

They say a lot of conservatives are statists at heart. This thread proves it.

 

[1sern]

They say a lot of conservatives are statists at heart. This thread proves it.

and some here seem to be anarchists who don't like the Constitution.

 

[Varmint]

LOL I'm not. Go read the Constitution. Interstate commerce is one of the powers given to congress, and they can tell states you can't sell manual transmission vehicles or they can tell states you can't ban firearms under their constitutionally given power (never mind the 2A arguments that should prevent states from doing it)

The proposed legislation makes no mention of interstate commerce, or Bill of Rights, it’s just proposing allowing the federal government to remove state laws banning things that aren’t banned. You want to set that precedent?

 

[Varmint]

and some here seem to be anarchists who don't like the Constitution.

The word you’re thinking of is libertarian.

 

[1sern]

Li

The word you’re thinking of is libertarian.

Libertarians at least acknowledge Constitutional powers even if they hate some of the powers listed in it

The proposed legislation makes no mention of interstate commerce, or Bill of Rights, it’s just proposing allowing the federal government to remove state laws banning things that aren’t banned. You want to set that precedent?

I'm sorry, you say things aren't banned???

It mentions manufacturing, importation sale and possession, clearly part of commerce. and the PR on it mentions the 2nd I'm not seeing how you can't grasp that. Apart from an "all gov = evil" argument I don't see how this is a problem with congress' enumerated powers and much better than many uses of it in the past

 

[LakeTrout]

States rights are also constitutionally protected.

The states have to adopt and protect the rights of citizens protected by the federal Constitution

 

[LakeTrout]

For arguments sake.. How is MA denying you your 2A rights?

You can still buy a gun.

I'm playing devil's advocate and in no way saying MA laws makes sense, but ...

You can still buy a gun.

SCOTUS has made clear that “arms” refers to those common at the time. MA law is preventing its subject from doing exactly that.

 

[Varmint]

The states have to adopt and protect the rights of citizens protected by the federal Constitution

Yes, but when they fail to do that, I don’t think the federal government should have the power to come in and “fix things.”

When has the federal government used its additional powers for good things? Hardly ever.