TexasCHLforum.com

tx85,

With that said, why couldn't congress write

...to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Seems like a lot of extraneous verbiage. I'm led to conclude that congress couldn't write it constitutionally without "interstate commerce." When the federal gov reworked the GFSZ, pretty much all they did was add interstate commerce to magically resurrect that unconstitutional law. As the ATF presents it, owning/possessing a firearm is affecting interstate commerce.

...
I decided not to continue on half-cocked and do some reading, and I found this, which appears to support my point (That USC 18 922 doesn't apply to Mr.Castille).

...The burden on Wilson’s core Second Amendment right is not severe. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson–not her possession of firearms. Wilson could have amassed legal firearms before acquiring a registry card, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter would WILSON V. LYNCH 15 not impede her right to keep her firearms or to use them to protect herself and her home.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ ... -15700.pdf
last paragraph of page 14

Regardless, you've given me a good homework assignment this weekend!

edit I think you addressed some of my concerns in the post prior to this, which I haphazardly restated again. I'm low on sleep. I'll concede your clarification of GFSZ history is superior to my recollection.

tx85 wrote:Not that this justifies the cop's actions, but Mr. Castile wasn't actually a legal gun owner as media outlets continue to claim even today. His state permit to carry is irrelevant because he was prohibited by federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)) from possessing guns.

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
...
(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—
...
(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting* commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

IANAL, but I did score pretty well on the reading portion of my SAT a while back. Despite that, I'm having trouble understanding how 18usc 922 applies to Mr. Castile. I think you are intimating that gun ownership equals affecting* interstate commerce. I see how this applies to gun stores, parts manufactures, etc...and maybe to the end buyer at the time he buys the weapon. But in perpetuity as long as one simply owns a firearm? Wasn't the original GFSZ struck down with similar logic?

*Affect: to bring about, or accomplish. e.g., "To bring about interstate commerce / To accomplish interstate commerce."

With all due respect, Sir

Why don't you come back with those 20 real factors and avoid the ad-hominems. I don't have an agenda, I see logical inconsistencies in some of the posts here and like you, post my thoughts and opinions.

thenick_ttu wrote:

Txtension wrote: So apparently there's some drill that he's supposed to know, but can you point out where this "drill" is codified?

I've always heard that referred to as common sense.

Some say common sense isn't common. Not sure if a breach of etiquette is worth killing over. Is it worth killing over Simon-Says?

To mojo84,

No sir, I am unaware of any of the Officer's social or official misconduct. Nor am I aware of whether the Officer is in violation of any other common victim-blaming/justifications. But who's on trial here, the dead-man or the one who killed him?

Topbuilder wrote:Sam Keats on July 9, 2016 at 11:25 pm

...I think history will show this to be an accurate representation of the deceased. A good guy.
He was pulled over 53 times in 14 years. 86 citations issued. 1/2 of the charges were dropped... I read he currently did not have a license to drive a car. He had to know the drill... hands on wheel, follow instructions. He could have had his info out before the cop got the car. What share of the responsibility did he hold?

Why does his criminal record/driving record matter? What does that have to do with his killing?

So apparently there's some drill that he's supposed to know, but can you point out where this "drill" is codified? In Texas, we know, we're supposed to present our LTC's -and- identification when lawfully requested by a magistrate/peace officer. However, where does it say to keep hands on wheel, roll windows down, have papers ready, you know, "the drill?" Where does it say that anywhere in the United States.

As for the culpability in his own death, do we blame the rape victim for wearing skimpy clothes? Do we blame the burglarized Homeowner for buying nice TV's and jewelry. Do we blame the "jugged" for using an ATM.

Lets toss the spotlight on the Officer. How many complaints has he had? How many "thug-life" photo's are on his social media? How many anti-civilian texts has he distributed?

Yea it gets pretty ridiculous, I reckon.

AJSully421 wrote:[Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton jump on their phones to find the next flight from Baton Rouge to Minnesota.]

I read forums all over the 'net, and sometimes, posts like this, here, make me double check the URL to make sure I am -here- and not in a storm cloud.