REPEAL OF ALL STATE-LEVEL MAGAZINE AND GUN BANS in the first 100 days.

[fishgutzy]

Good for you! Best I can do is part-time escape and residency change since we have a business here that can't be moved. That said, if I win the Powerball **** the business...leaving and never coming back!

Dude, I need a HEMI fund!

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[drgrant]

The ATF can regulate firearms in the same way the FAA regulates aviation. FAA regs, enabled by legislation, supersede all state regulations, and the states have no individual say in what kinds of aircraft can be manufactured, produced or used, or even where they can be used.

"He thinks that's how gun laws work.... So amuse."

 

[Suppressor]

This is why we lose. As has been pointed out, Trump wasn't supposed to win, either. We will see.

 

[MarkT]

It's coming. The Mass "Assault" Weapon Ban's days are numbered. The federal court case is about to be made irrelevant.

State-level mag and firearm bans, consumer protection laws, and nation-wide concealed carry, all gone in the first 100 days of the Trump administration.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/11/trump-to-support-nationwide-concealed-carry/

The Federal Government should never, ever, have this type of power. What we really need to do is start pulling it back to the states.

 

[drgrant]

This is why we lose. As has been pointed out, Trump wasn't supposed to win, either. We will see.

There's a big difference between winning an election and expecting someone to simply override an entire legal system and established laws on multiple
tiers.

Also, maybe Trump has the balls to attempt something like this, but do you think the rest of congress does? Not a chance.

-Mike

 

[RKG]

Nice idea, but neither Trump nor Congress can repeal or invalidate state firearms laws.

It's going to be up to the SCOTUS to do that, and that's years from now.

So one might think, at least at first blush. Upon reflection, though, I'm not so sure:

Amendment 2 of the United States Constitution confers certain federal, constitutional rights on citizens of the United States.

Amendment 14, Section 1 of the Constitution provides, in part: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States . . . "

Amendment 14, Section 5 provides: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

In fact, Section 5 is the constitutional basis for any number of so-called civil rights statutes enacted by Congress, many of which have been used to achieve judicial declarations of the invalidity of contrary state and local enactments.

Arguably, Section 5 means a tad less than it appears to say. Certainly, Congress cannot create a new federal right, and the extent to which Congress can define the parameters of an existing constitutional right are a tad murky. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). But these limitations do not mean that, assuming a carefully drafted and confined statutory remedy for state and local violations of Second Amendment rights, Congress is entirely toothless in this context. See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) (striking down state literacy tests for voting, which Congress had found could be and often were improperly administered).

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that federalizing pistol permits would be a good idea. Neither am I prepared to bet my lunch money that, even as it will be constituted starting this January, such a proposal would have a chance of being enacted. I rise, rather, merely to point out that in constitutional terms, a federal statutory enforceent of certain constitutional gun rights does not necessarily implicate states rights, the 10th Amendment, or principles of federalism.

 

[Bonesinium]

The Federal Government should never, ever, have this type of power. What we really need to do is start pulling it back to the states.

No. Because they states weren't either. Nor any government.

If you mean in general, then yes. You are correct. The federal government ways always meant to have very specific and limited authority. But instead we have the biggest and most controlling government on the planet with bureaucratic agencies for everything with broad powers and everlasting funds which are spent more on justifying their own existence and infringing on freedoms and liberties than anything remotely even construed as useful.

But I digress.

 

[Dadstoys]

There is history of the Feds being able to enforce mandates on the states.
Seat belt laws.
55mph speed limits .
OUI laws.
And a few others.
Want that Fed money, toe the line.
And it worked , they all did, eventually.

 

[Glockster30]

Justice Samuel Alito outlined the possible agenda for a conservative SCOTUS that includes gun rights and freedom of speech, so maybe something will happen sooner than later.

[FONT=&quot]In reference to gun rights, Alito mentioned Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court found an individual right to bear arms for self defense. Breyer's dissent, in which he argued that the Constitution's Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns, gave a "roadmap" to those who would seek to undermine the ruling, Alito said.[/FONT]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alito-outlines-possible-conservative-agenda-u-high-court-185021438.html

 

[Tarsook]

There's a big difference between winning an election and expecting someone to simply override an entire legal system and established laws on multiple
tiers.
-Mike

 

[CaseHardened]

There is history of the Feds being able to enforce mandates on the states.
Seat belt laws.
55mph speed limits .
OUI laws.
And a few others.
Want that Fed money, toe the line.
And it worked , they all did, eventually.

Heard an amazing report on Howie Carr WRKO 680 AM Boston today.

Sanctuary Cities - GONE, GONE !!!

Not only can the Feds withdraw ALL Police Enforcement Grants from Sanctuary Cities, at Trumps order, the Feds can demand 25 years of these Grants to be PAID BACK !

And there is every indication Trump will do so.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

There is history of the Feds being able to enforce mandates on the states.
Seat belt laws.
55mph speed limits .
OUI laws.
And a few others.
Want that Fed money, toe the line.
And it worked , they all did, eventually.

Until you hit that stretch of 93 in NH with out a seat belt on and the speed limit is 70mph.

 

[LittleCalm]

The ATF can regulate firearms in the same way the FAA regulates aviation. FAA regs, enabled by legislation, supersede all state regulations, and the states have no individual say in what kinds of aircraft can be manufactured, produced or used, or even where they can be used.

The Republicans have all the votes they need to do this. They can even suspend the filibuster rule in the Senate, and pass the law without a single democrat vote.

Until the dems have control and then have the precedent to go crazy on us.

 

[watchman]

Too much negativity and can nots in this thread some of you need positive pills. Are you also afraid of someone telling you no?

 

[omega42]

Even if you are correct, you are mixing CAN with the will to DO.

Bingo. This is the same bunch that just kept McConnell in place.

This is very true. The right turn on red laws were enforced pretty much in every state due to threat of withholding of highway funds.

I guess you don't remember Dukakis ordering "No Right On Red" signs for EVERY TRAFFIC LIGHT in the PRM.

He should wait on this. Get a few justices in the SC. Also he should do 2 more things:
1)Get rid of the illegal criminals
2)Somehow make the Patriot act or RICO or something apply to street gangs, who are the largest illegal users of firearms.

After all of those things are complete, he will hopefully have a SC makeup to back him up, and also he'll clean up the streets enough to show that CRIMINALS, not guns commit crime.

I think he will have the ammo, pun intended, to prove that point, and to convince people moving forward that we need to be more tough on criminals who break gun laws, instead of more gun laws that do nothing.

And he must do this before the mid-terms, because after Hillary losing, I don't think he'll have both House and Senate anymore.

Trump has a year at best before congresscritters start thinking about the 2018 election.

Once Trump and the Republicans have established people in all the right places - SCOTUS, AG, FBI, Fed Courts, and in more positions throughout the States, things will begin to change. Leverage and pressure is what will make things happen more than actual change to so called law. Program support, campaign support, hearings, investigations, etc. don't necessarily need the full extent of due process to be effective.

Federal courts are already packed due to Reid changing the filibuster rules and jamming through a bunch of leftist ideologues.

 

[M1911]

Too much negativity and can nots in this thread some of you need positive pills. Are you also afraid of someone telling you no?

You mean too many people paid attention in Civics class in grade school and thus have some understanding of the checks and balances of the US government. As a result, they realize that the US President is not a dictator and therefore is constrained in what he can accomplish.

 

[kevin9]

 

[watchman]

You mean too many people paid attention in Civics class in grade school and thus have some understanding of the checks and balances of the US government. As a result, they realize that the US President is not a dictator and therefore is constrained in what he can accomplish.

Interesting, but I think with his ability to enforce federal laws which can extend to the law abiding state approved marijuana sales I am sure , not being a lawyer, below says Maura is ignoring the law.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[SUP][15][/SUP]

 

[Junior314]

We live in a state where the "republican" Governor bent over at his desk when the AG eroded our rights with this AW crap AND recently came out in support of sanctuary cities. This is a state issue, don't see a Trump administration doing anything to help us here when it comes to RKBA.

 

[Individualist]

Trump and the GOP have 2 years until interim elections to make things happen. Trump is going to make as many allies and as many deals as possible to get things done. He is going to come out of the gate at a full gallop. They can make his life as Gov easy or hard. They can help keep him in office or not. I have no doubt they will be playing hardball with touchy feeley faker.

 

[Gooman24]

How does one pass a reciprocity-restricting law???? It would be like MA saying that if you want to drive a vehicle in the state and are not a resident with a resident license, you must wear red pants.

You mean like that law that says you can't drive a car in MA that's not insured?

Right, but unless you can point out the "magazine ban" article in the Constitution, and absent some SCOTUS ruling that specifically says "magazine bans are unconstitutional," then the power to ban magazines is a power not delegated to the US by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, and therefore one reserved to the States. Whether or not we think magazine bans are an unconstitutional infringement is irrelevant.

Can you read? Are you having trouble with "shall not be infringed"? The second amendment clearly defines gun rights. The tenth can't touch them. Why don't you go back and read them both again until the sheer absurdity of what you just said sinks in.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Maui5150]

Then again... Just look at the new 4473 coming our way.... mainly pushed to stress... Hey... on 11e... We don't care if your state made Mary Jane smoking legal... it still voids your gun usage/ownership rights.

The question then becomes if the state cannot allow something prohibited by the fed, can a state prohibit something allowed by the fed, especially 2nd amendment wise. Whether such a case gets brought up or not, they may be open for interpretation

 

[Varmint]

... but the Federal Govt. can make receiving some federal funds contingent on complying with a federal law.

Yup, hey Mass, want your billions in infrastructure funds, ditch that ban.

They could easily do it, but i doubt they will, congress is careful to throw stones in glass houses.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Yup, hey Mass, want your billions in infrastructure funds, ditch that ban.

They could easily do it, but i doubt they will, congress is careful to throw stones in glass houses.

The feds always do it. Seat belts, speed limit, schools, etc...

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Too much negativity and can nots in this thread some of you need positive pills. Are you also afraid of someone telling you no?

This sums it up.

 

[mac1911]

If the Rs where serious they would repeal NFA 1934 and GCA1968 for starters.
Then refund all those wrongly taxed on NFA items.

 

[Spanz]

Nice idea, but neither Trump nor Congress can repeal or invalidate state firearms laws.

It's going to be up to the SCOTUS to do that, and that's years from now.

this

 

[M1911]

Interesting, but I think with his ability to enforce federal laws which can extend to the law abiding state approved marijuana sales I am sure , not being a lawyer, below says Maura is ignoring the law.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[SUP][15][/SUP]

Even Heller recognized that the states could apply limits to the 2nd. Whether or not Healey's actions go beyond those limits has not been adjudicated by SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Even Heller recognized that the state's could apply limits to the 2nd. Whether or not Healey's actions go beyond those limits has not been adjudicated by SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Of course it does, there is no doubt about it. The state has no right to limit what people can buy period ! They do it all time, I know. What limits? What types of limits? Courts are wrong again ! Tap dance around it all you want. At the end of the day, the FACT remains it is an unconstitutional infringement upon my rights.

 

[CTpatriot]

Not going to happen, but there would be a good chance of national reciprocity in states that are willing to play ball.

I think that we already have that, with states deciding how much reciprocity they will give.