Assault weapons and large magazines ban upheld in New York and Conneticut

[2aguy]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut
I guess the NRA was asleep?

Thank you very much for that good news.

However we all know the nra and gun nuts won't stop with that ruling. They will take it to the supreme court. Which I hope that the court will not twist the constitution and come up with some crazy reason why states can't regulate gun sales.

The constitution is very clear. The government has the power to regulate commerce. Selling guns is commerce so the government can impose regulations on guns.

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.

It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

In case you didn't know what the word commerce means, it's buying and selling of goods or services. In this case the goods are weapons or guns.

So if you have any sort of integrity and honesty or even simple knowledge of what's in the constitution you would know that the government has a constitutional right to regulate guns.

Well that is IF you're a real American you would.

One of the first pro gun decisions.....


United States v. Lopez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.

The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[8]

 

[2aguy]

Supreme Court refuses to take up NRA challenge to San Francisco gun law

The NRA is slowly losing the war....one battle at a time.

Thank you very much for that information.

I hope the nra loses more cases in the future. Our nation is being destroyed by the nra whose only motivation is money. It's controlled by weapons manufacturers and all they care about is selling more of those weapons.

They don't care about the innocent lives that are destroyed by those weapons.

Sorry...their legislative side is funded only by individual donors and they give a lot of money to keep our right to bear arms .....

 

[Dana7360]

Thank you very much for that good news.

However we all know the nra and gun nuts won't stop with that ruling. They will take it to the supreme court. Which I hope that the court will not twist the constitution and come up with some crazy reason why states can't regulate gun sales.

The constitution is very clear. The government has the power to regulate commerce. Selling guns is commerce so the government can impose regulations on guns.

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.

It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

In case you didn't know what the word commerce means, it's buying and selling of goods or services. In this case the goods are weapons or guns.

So if you have any sort of integrity and honesty or even simple knowledge of what's in the constitution you would know that the government has a constitutional right to regulate guns.

Well that is IF you're a real American you would.

Uh, the commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" "among the states" means interstate, not intrastate.

So yes, the commerce clause is what enabled the federal government to require licenses for INTERSTATE sales of firearms, but not private sales within the states...your so-called "gun show loophole" (which of course isn't a loophole at all, Congress realized their gun control wet dreams would go down in Constitutional smoke if they attempted to regulate private sales within the states).

I'll give you a cookie for at least trying...but so sorry, you failed because you refuse to look beyond the 30 second sound bites and actually study the facts and history of the issue.

Edit: sorry, but after reading the other emotional tripe you have written, I have to take away your cookie. When you think you know the facts and the history of this issue, try again...I might take you seriously if you do some basic homework.

Yes it does.

You don't realize that most of the goods sold in America either come 100% from another nation or state or part of it does.

The supreme court has ruled that since goods aren't made in one place anymore, sales of goods can be regulated because all or part was made in another state or another nation.

There was a case in California with a woman who was growing her own medical marijuana. She was arrested and prosecuted under the commerce clause. The fertilizer she used to grow the marijuana was made out of her state. So her guilty verdict stood and she went to prison.

You can read about it at the link below but I'll paste the part about the ruling.

Why Can’t ‘Cannabis’ Be In The Commerce Clause? | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform

Controversially, the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the feds may regulate nearly anything that has an effect on interstate commerce. In the landmark case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who grew marijuana plants on her property for her own medical use was participating in “interstate commerce.” - See more at: Why Can’t ‘Cannabis’ Be In The Commerce Clause? | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform


You can read the formal ruling at the link below:

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 US 1 - Supreme Court 2005 - Google Scholar

Same with guns and all other goods sold in America. Nothing is made in one place anymore. Companies get their raw materials from other nations and states. Some companies have parts of whatever they make be assembled in China or other nations then have the parts shipped here and workers here assemble the final product.

So consult the real meaning of the commerce claus and the case law that uses that part of the constitution.

The government most certainly can regulate the sale of guns. It's right there in the constitution and the supreme court case law.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you do have to accept it.

 

[Dan Daly]

More mindless nonsense.
There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.

You're saying the constitution is mindless nonsense?

There is no sound argument for the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'
Disagree?
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Still waiting for a sound response.

I already gave you one. It's taken directly from our constitution.

It's called the Commerce Clause. Look it up. It gives our government the power to regulate commerce.

In case you didn't know what the word commerce means, it's buying and selling of goods or services. In this case the goods are weapons or guns.

So if you have any sort of integrity and honesty or even simple knowledge of what's in the constitution you would know that the government has a constitutional right to regulate guns.

Well that is IF you're a real American you would.

Uh, the commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce "with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" "among the states" means interstate, not intrastate.

So yes, the commerce clause is what enabled the federal government to require licenses for INTERSTATE sales of firearms, but not private sales within the states...your so-called "gun show loophole" (which of course isn't a loophole at all, Congress realized their gun control wet dreams would go down in Constitutional smoke if they attempted to regulate private sales within the states).

I'll give you a cookie for at least trying...but so sorry, you failed because you refuse to look beyond the 30 second sound bites and actually study the facts and history of the issue.

Edit: sorry, but after reading the other emotional tripe you have written, I have to take away your cookie. When you think you know the facts and the history of this issue, try again...I might take you seriously if you do some basic homework.

Yes it does.

You don't realize that most of the goods sold in America either come 100% from another nation or state or part of it does.

The supreme court has ruled that since goods aren't made in one place anymore, sales of goods can be regulated because all or part was made in another state or another nation.

There was a case in California with a woman who was growing her own medical marijuana. She was arrested and prosecuted under the commerce clause. The fertilizer she used to grow the marijuana was made out of her state. So her guilty verdict stood and she went to prison.

You can read about it at the link below but I'll paste the part about the ruling.

Why Can’t ‘Cannabis’ Be In The Commerce Clause? | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform

Controversially, the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the feds may regulate nearly anything that has an effect on interstate commerce. In the landmark case of Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman who grew marijuana plants on her property for her own medical use was participating in “interstate commerce.” - See more at: Why Can’t ‘Cannabis’ Be In The Commerce Clause? | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform


You can read the formal ruling at the link below:

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 US 1 - Supreme Court 2005 - Google Scholar

Same with guns and all other goods sold in America. Nothing is made in one place anymore. Companies get their raw materials from other nations and states. Some companies have parts of whatever they make be assembled in China or other nations then have the parts shipped here and workers here assemble the final product.

So consult the real meaning of the commerce claus and the case law that uses that part of the constitution.

The government most certainly can regulate the sale of guns. It's right there in the constitution and the supreme court case law.

You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, you do have to accept it.

Oh for chris' sake...you either didn't read what I wrote or are just too stupid to understand it. No, I don't have to accept any nonsense that flows out of the fingers of an obvious moron who is too lazy to have even the basic civics education that my 13 yr old grandson has.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Controversially, the power of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce granted to it by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the feds may regulate nearly anything that has an effect on interstate commerce.

The commerce clause is limited by the 2nd Amendment - and so, your response does not meet the challenge.
But, you knew that.

There is no sound argument for neither the necessity nor the constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons'.