TexasCHLforum.com

ifanyonecan wrote:

HankB wrote:

ifanyonecan wrote:

HankB wrote:Hmmm . . . what if a state passed a law saying that all adult US citizens residing in a state and of sound mind and no criminal record were eligible to volunteer to be members of the State Militia, said state militia members being expected to obtain at reasonable cost and maintain in good working order personal firearms that were functionally equivalent to those issued to US military personnel, including FA capability? Wouldn't this tend to create headaches for those enforcing the 1986 machinegun freeze?

I wonder how this would differ from other paramilitary civilian organizations, such as Xe Services (Blackwater).

AFAIK, Xe/Blackwater is a private company. I was thinking that if a state - a unit of government - established explicitly that individuals could be considered "militia" members and expected to have FA firearms, that Fed.Gov would have some difficulty in preventing it. (IANAL, so if I'm overlooking something obvious, I'd welcome correction from someone with legal competence.)

I was asking how it would differ, since the mercenaries working for Xe Services are civilians. Do they pay the NFA tax? Surely the tax stamp holder wouldn't be able to monitor the mercenaries using the rifles at all time, as required by law. There must be some exemption they have.

i thought there was some laws about Corporations or Trusts being able to own Class 3 weapons. Also I think Xe (Blackwater) had permission because they worked for the defense department, someone ask Andy I'm sure he could inform us.

http://www.machinegunbroker.com/overview.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Buying As a Trust, Corporation, or LLC Packet
If you have decided to purchase as a Corporation, Trust or LLC, this 14 page packet contains:
Class 3 Overview
Instructions on Buying as a Corporation, Trust, or LLC - Including Sample Forms
Forms to be Completed
(contains all of the forms needed to purchase as a corporation, trust, or LLC)

casingpoint wrote:Don't be surprised if Obama and the Dumbocrats try to use the Commerce Clause to force mandatory universal health insurance upon the American public.

For the sake of argument, they probably can. Since U.S. v. Lopez, the test for whether or not a law is valid under interstate commerce is:

Any thing that is 1) the object of interstate commerce, 2) an instrumentality of interstate commerce, or 3) substantially affects interstate commerce and is economic in nature can be regulated by the federal government using the Commerce Clause power.

Health Insurance is the object of interstate commerce because insurance companies sell health insurance to people in more than one state. Even if the company is completely intrastate, it substantially affects interstate commerce (due to the interstate health care market) and is economic in nature (money exchanged for services). Hospitals and health care providers are similarly objects of interstate commerce as every one of them ships things in from out of state and takes insurance from companies headquartered out of state.