-
- Species
- Whitetails
- Rut Reporters
- Deer Camp
- Big Game
- Small Game
- Birds
- Special Methods
- Bow Hunting
- Conservation
- Heroes of Conservation
- Hero for a Day
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
- Land for Sale
-
- Species
- Bass
- Trout
- More Freshwater
- Saltwater
- Special Methods
- Fly Fishing
- Hook Shots
Presented by
- Conservation
- Heroes of Conservation
- Hero for a Day
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
- Land for Sale
-
- Health & Fitness
- F&S Adventurer
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
-
- Rifles
- Shotguns
- 2nd Amendment
- SHOT Show
- Outdoor Skills
- Total Outdoorsman Challenge
AnswersASK YOUR QUESTION
Print
Email
Share
Answers
Browse By
Top Users
Q:
get this! wyoming went a step further in the enactment of their version of the freedom of firearms law by specifing criminal punishment for any federal agent attempting to enforce federal laws against a private firearms maker or dealer in the state! i love it! the feds are really being pushed into a corner now and will have to do one thing or another soon. what do you think?
Question by jamesti. Uploaded on March 18, 2010
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Today on Field & Stream
Loading...
Visit Our Sister Sites at Bonnier Corporation
| Enthusiast | Kiteboarding | QUAD | SKI | Skiing | Scuba Diving | Sport Diver | TransWorld Ride BMX | TransWorld Business | TransWorld Motocross | TransWorld SKATEboarding, | TransWorld SNOWboarding | TransWorld SURF | WakeBoarding | WaterSki | Warren Miller Entertainment | WindSurfing |
|---|---|
| Travel | Caribbean Travel & Life | Destination Weddings & Honeymoon | Islands | Meeting Traveler | Resorts & Great Hotels |
| Lifestyle & Shelter | Florida Travel & Life | Garden Design | Home Ft. Lauderdale | Home Miami |
| Luxury | SNOW | Spa |
| Marine | Boating Life | Cruising World | Fly Fishing in Salt Waters | Power Cruising | Marlin | Motor Boating | Sailing World | Salt Water Sportsman | Sport Fishing | Yachting | NewBoats.com | UsedBoats.com | YachtBroker.com |
| Outdoor | Field & Stream | Outdoor Life | SHOT Business |
| Parenting | Babytalk | Parenting |
| Science | Popular Science | Science Illustrated |
| Saveur | Saveur |
| Working Mother Media | Working Mother |
| Entertainment / Events | World Entertainment Services | World Sports & Marketing |
Fieldandstream.com is part of the Field & Stream Network, a division of Bonnier Corporation.
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Answers (10)
It's great!!! look at this!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128035
That piece of legislation will get tossed by the Supreme Court. Ya can go ahead and give me all the minuses you want and it won't make any difference. The federal govt has been given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Under that broad umbrella they have assumed the right to regulate firearms and drugs and mail fraud, etc., etc. The Court has upheld this and I'm sure it will continue to do so. I really don't have much use for state (or provincial) legislatures that waste time and taxpayer money making laws and regulations that they know will be unenforceable. An expensive and useless way to make political statements. Also doesn't do much for their credibility.
I've been very interested in this legislation since I first heard about it. I see a few problems that probably won't go away. I look forward to seeing how this plays out. I personally see the gun issue as the scape goat only, there are many more underlying issues for the states and this is only the head of the pin.
Well this should be an interesting piece to follow. Not sure how it will go.
The Tenth Amendment specifies that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 45, maintained that the powers of a federal government are “few and defined” and extend “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce,” whereas the powers reserved to the states are “numerous and indefinite” and “extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Madison reiterated this in The Federalist No. 46.
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
The Federal government has far overstepped the powers delegated to them by the Constitution, and the States are attempting to regain some of their usurped powers. SCOTUS has a really hopscotch record of rulings on issues involving states rights, depending on how the Court is composed at the time of the issue before it. Of course, the current administration and Democrat congressional leadership has shown such absolute and utter disregard for all of the Constitution, that this will be a very long and bitter fight, through every court level.
With today's acceptance of the Slaughter rule, aka Deem and Pass, and the resulting SCOTUS lawsuit filed immediately, it may be some time before the Court can get around to a ruling on this matter. The longer the States can forestall a ruling, and the more States that pass similar legislation, the better the chances of this law being upheld by SCOTUS.
The counterargument to the argument that the federal government has overstepped its bounds is that the federal government in Article I, Section 8 is granted the 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." Historically, this text has been read to grant the federal government a whole host of regulation rights (for example: carrying mail from post office to post office, even though the only explicit grant of power was to create post offices and maintain post roads, not to actually carry the mail, and yeah it's kind of a dumb example, but one the Supreme Court has used nonetheless). The right for the federal government to regulate firearms, then, could theoretically be read to be derived from the federal government's duty to regulate a militia/military. I'm not overly convinced by this line of reasoning, but it is the line of reasoning the SCOTUS has used in justifying federal power over states for a long time.
Ontario, I don't think they are just making a political statement. There are also a number of other states (Texas, Colorado and a bunch more) that are looking at putting the same legislation thru. Yes, congress regulates interstate commerce, but in this case it is intrastate commerce. The bill says clearly firearms manufactured in the state, meant for use in the state and not intended for export by residents of the state...that would be intrastate not interstate
exactly what i was gonna say hengst but you probably put into words better than i could have. another thing to consider is that the main reason the founding fathers created the 2nd ammendment was to ensure that the federal government have to answer to the people. checks and balances to ensure that government not get too big for their britches. maybe a reason that liberals want to outlaw guns altogether. if they succeed, they can do anything they want and we are all subjects instead of individuals.
I think its great but they can't get out of hand and start doing anything illegal. If they do they feds can have the right to shut them down in a heartbeat.
Hengst, how many gun manufacturers do you know of only allow their guns to be sold in the state where they are made? Let's face it, today there is literally nothing that is made in the U.S. that isn't sold across state boundaries. Since the Progressive Era (under those damn bunch of liberals led by President Teddy Roosevelt), the federal government has stepped more forcefully into the arena of regulating interstate commerce, particularly items that affect health and safety. Food, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, air traffic controllers, and, yes, guns. Before the FDA came along, Coke actually had coke in it, housewives regularly fed themselves and their children narcotics to keep them relaxed, and the stuff that was in processed "mystery meat" was truly a mystery (for good reasons!). The first federal gun legislation was enacted during the gangland bloodbath of the Great Depression. It strictly controlled the possession and transfer of automatic weapons. People were tired of wars on the streets and no state legislature had the guts to stand up to the mob and do something about it. Anyway, what could they do with the ambiguous 2nd Amendment hanging over their heads? Sorry, but I have nothing but praise for those federal legislators who accomplished that feat and the court justices who honored it. I can't imagine what the US would be like today like without it. Everyone carries machine guns in Afghanistan and look at the wonderful things it's doing for their culture. I wouldn't want to live there!
Post an Answer
The Tenth Amendment specifies that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
James Madison, in The Federalist No. 45, maintained that the powers of a federal government are “few and defined” and extend “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce,” whereas the powers reserved to the states are “numerous and indefinite” and “extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” Madison reiterated this in The Federalist No. 46.
Thomas Jefferson described the Tenth Amendment as “the foundation of the Constitution” and added, “to take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn … is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
The Federal government has far overstepped the powers delegated to them by the Constitution, and the States are attempting to regain some of their usurped powers. SCOTUS has a really hopscotch record of rulings on issues involving states rights, depending on how the Court is composed at the time of the issue before it. Of course, the current administration and Democrat congressional leadership has shown such absolute and utter disregard for all of the Constitution, that this will be a very long and bitter fight, through every court level.
With today's acceptance of the Slaughter rule, aka Deem and Pass, and the resulting SCOTUS lawsuit filed immediately, it may be some time before the Court can get around to a ruling on this matter. The longer the States can forestall a ruling, and the more States that pass similar legislation, the better the chances of this law being upheld by SCOTUS.
Ontario, I don't think they are just making a political statement. There are also a number of other states (Texas, Colorado and a bunch more) that are looking at putting the same legislation thru. Yes, congress regulates interstate commerce, but in this case it is intrastate commerce. The bill says clearly firearms manufactured in the state, meant for use in the state and not intended for export by residents of the state...that would be intrastate not interstate
It's great!!! look at this!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128035
I've been very interested in this legislation since I first heard about it. I see a few problems that probably won't go away. I look forward to seeing how this plays out. I personally see the gun issue as the scape goat only, there are many more underlying issues for the states and this is only the head of the pin.
The counterargument to the argument that the federal government has overstepped its bounds is that the federal government in Article I, Section 8 is granted the 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." Historically, this text has been read to grant the federal government a whole host of regulation rights (for example: carrying mail from post office to post office, even though the only explicit grant of power was to create post offices and maintain post roads, not to actually carry the mail, and yeah it's kind of a dumb example, but one the Supreme Court has used nonetheless). The right for the federal government to regulate firearms, then, could theoretically be read to be derived from the federal government's duty to regulate a militia/military. I'm not overly convinced by this line of reasoning, but it is the line of reasoning the SCOTUS has used in justifying federal power over states for a long time.
Well this should be an interesting piece to follow. Not sure how it will go.
exactly what i was gonna say hengst but you probably put into words better than i could have. another thing to consider is that the main reason the founding fathers created the 2nd ammendment was to ensure that the federal government have to answer to the people. checks and balances to ensure that government not get too big for their britches. maybe a reason that liberals want to outlaw guns altogether. if they succeed, they can do anything they want and we are all subjects instead of individuals.
I think its great but they can't get out of hand and start doing anything illegal. If they do they feds can have the right to shut them down in a heartbeat.
That piece of legislation will get tossed by the Supreme Court. Ya can go ahead and give me all the minuses you want and it won't make any difference. The federal govt has been given the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Under that broad umbrella they have assumed the right to regulate firearms and drugs and mail fraud, etc., etc. The Court has upheld this and I'm sure it will continue to do so. I really don't have much use for state (or provincial) legislatures that waste time and taxpayer money making laws and regulations that they know will be unenforceable. An expensive and useless way to make political statements. Also doesn't do much for their credibility.
Hengst, how many gun manufacturers do you know of only allow their guns to be sold in the state where they are made? Let's face it, today there is literally nothing that is made in the U.S. that isn't sold across state boundaries. Since the Progressive Era (under those damn bunch of liberals led by President Teddy Roosevelt), the federal government has stepped more forcefully into the arena of regulating interstate commerce, particularly items that affect health and safety. Food, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, air traffic controllers, and, yes, guns. Before the FDA came along, Coke actually had coke in it, housewives regularly fed themselves and their children narcotics to keep them relaxed, and the stuff that was in processed "mystery meat" was truly a mystery (for good reasons!). The first federal gun legislation was enacted during the gangland bloodbath of the Great Depression. It strictly controlled the possession and transfer of automatic weapons. People were tired of wars on the streets and no state legislature had the guts to stand up to the mob and do something about it. Anyway, what could they do with the ambiguous 2nd Amendment hanging over their heads? Sorry, but I have nothing but praise for those federal legislators who accomplished that feat and the court justices who honored it. I can't imagine what the US would be like today like without it. Everyone carries machine guns in Afghanistan and look at the wonderful things it's doing for their culture. I wouldn't want to live there!
Post an Answer