I used to like watching mosquitos pop when prevented from withdrawing their beaks. Reality is correct-the more you post the more idiotic the gun restrictionist side appears. Especially as it become obvious that "saving lives" is merely a facade you push in order to serve as a pretext for a hostile animus towards honest gun owners and the NRA
You don't read so well so I've re-quoted myself to reinforce the point: Why would I stop feeding you? When I do so you consistently hoist yourself and your side from your own petard. You do all the work for me, why would I stop?
You're welcome for the correction, dear. I know sometimes it takes some repetition to break through your blinders
No amendment is required. We already have federal gun law, that all 50 states are bound by. There is nothing to prevent a federal CCW law.
And what theories are those laws under and how far do those theories allow you to go? HINT: What you're asking for isn't properly covered under either commerce or taxation (the original conception OR the wrongfully expanded conception) which means its a police power. Which the fed does not have.
nonsense. its why you have to be 21 to possess or purchase a handgun, along with every other federal gun law. nothing prevents a national ccw law
Under a commerce theory dear, and its not to possess its to purchase. PURCHASE. COMMERCE. <<< SEE? The single one on possession is about the vesting of constitutional rights, something in fed purview and laid out in constitutional amendments. Notice even that one has caveats because the PARENT holds them in trust and makes rulings as to their exercise by the minor. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao-ut/legacy/2013/06/03/guncard.pdf What you desire is radically different, even under the wrongfully expanded commerce clause. Even wickard doesn't give you this power.
Sorry, but it's no different than any other federal firearm law. There is nothing that prevents a national CCW law.
See above dear. Its always so sad when they can't get past their statist blinders. You need a constitutional amendment to add a federal police power to do what you want. If you think it can be done under a commerce theory then make your case. Write it like a court opinion.
I saw above. I showed why it's wrong. I don't. There is nothing preventing a national CCW law. It's no different than any other federal firearm regulation/law. I'm not using a commerce theory.
The above is a simple denial, it doesn't analyze a thing. You saying "nuh uhhhhhhhh" does not prove a thing. Show us your analysis. Then under what theory are you proceeding? Explain your reasoning. There is no cause for you to be so obtuse or to refuse to provide your analysis if you are confident in it. The fact that you won't tells me you've got nothing.
I gave it to you. There is nothing preventing a CCW federal law. It's no different than any other federal firearms law/regulation. general welfare Pretending I haven't doesn't change anything
I'm not at all convinced it ever was a goal more so than the power structure runs upon the masses seething at one another.
Now we're getting somewhere: General welfare is a clause which is NOT a police power, nor does it allow police power type actions. General welfare allows the levying of taxes for "the general welfare". It is not an open remit to do just anything. Either under Madison's view, or Hamilton's. What you are demanding is not a levying of taxes or a purchase, but a fiat that thou shalt do or do not as the fed decrees. This has nothing to do with taxation or spending, and everything to do with control exercised for the "health and safety" of the populace. "Health and safety" is part of the police power. Only STATES have the police power, the fed lacks it. In fact if memory serves, you have been informed of this before, with this exact link. Though I suppose it could've been Vegas. https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/General+Welfare I didn't pretend anything, this is the first time I've gotten a straight answer out of you rather than deflection. Thank you for answering with your theory, general welfare. Incorrect as it is, at least you're participating in some good faith. Good for you
better let the FEDS know that all of their firearm laws/regulations are illegal. Lol Nothing I've said is incorrect. It's why you don't have any full autos after 86, nukes, and why we can have a CCW federal law.
Buddy: They aren't using gen welfare as their theory. They're using an expanded version of the commerce clause for ALL of that **** you cite BUT FOR nukes which are a nat sec issue. And even that expanded version does allow the sort of measure you're pushing for. They cannot nationalize this policy as that would require they have a police power, which they do not. With the expanded version of commerce they have restricted sales of machineguns (NFA), further restricted those after may 16 1986 (Hughes amendment to FOPA). They HAVE required TAX STAMPS on those things MOVED THROUGH COMMERCE POST STATUTE. They have not required that anyone owning an arm register it, and they cannot, because they don't have a police power. If you would like to give them one, see Art V. So you citing all of those things is just foolishness personified. Which isn't surprising so much as it is just sad. You citing gen welfare as your theory is wildly ****ing incorrect chief. Demonstrably so. See links above. Okie doke?
ok. You are free to be as incorrect as you'd like. Meanwhile, you can't own any nukes, machine guns made after 86, and could have a national ccw law. all perfectly legal.
