TexasCHLforum.com

Carry-a-Kimber wrote:Might wanna read this brief as well. US v Stewart

That's such a weak argument, that because someone makes something within a state, could change the interstate commerce of that item. The government should only be able to regulate the items that only pass the borders of a state, not the otherwise potential trade across state borders.

That's like saying a company MUST produce a good, because if they slacked off, the federal government wouldn't get the taxes it was due. (entitlement on the federal level)

Hoosier Daddy wrote:

APynckel wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:State law cannot trump federal law and Montana's law is going to get someone a stint in a federal prison. The Commerce Clause has been so perverted over the years, especially in recent years, that it applies not only to products that have moved in interstate commerce, but also items that impact interstate commerce.

Your heart is in the right place, but even it the bill were to pass, it won't keep the feds from filing federal criminal charges.

Chas.

Then take it to the supreme to make them STATE what interstate commerce's definition is.

They already did. Wickard v. Filburn.

All Enemies, Foreign AND Domestic

Buying a suppressor, an enemy, does not make me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:State law cannot trump federal law and Montana's law is going to get someone a stint in a federal prison. The Commerce Clause has been so perverted over the years, especially in recent years, that it applies not only to products that have moved in interstate commerce, but also items that impact interstate commerce.

Your heart is in the right place, but even it the bill were to pass, it won't keep the feds from filing federal criminal charges.

Chas.

Then take it to the supreme to make them STATE what interstate commerce's definition is.

And state law DOES trump federal law by the 10th, since intrastate commerce is not a power delegated to the fed by the constitution.

Mr Cotton, the reason why this country is in the heap of poo that it is, is because people who are law abiding citizens won't stand up for what the law actually states, they just lean over a bit and say "yea, that's okay I guess" instead of just plain "NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!!" It's time we tell the fed that it DOES NOT have these powers.

Hoosier Daddy wrote:Start with machine guns. At least BATFE allows new suppressors to be manufactured and sold to taxpaying citizens. They haven't allowed that for machine guns in more than 25 years.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

SHALL not vs SHOULD not.

I 100% completely agree. It's a shame people's ignorance of the english language has allowed the federal gov't to power grab.

74novaman wrote:

APynckel wrote:How many of you hold NFA regulated items?

I would like to know, because I would like to petition the Texas congress to put BATFE's jurisdiction in check. I want suppressors made in Texas and purchased in Texas, to be regulated by Texas (since that's intrastate commerce, and not interstate). Since we have the most stringent background checks compared to the fed, I would state that this would be an improvement. Also, no $200 federal tax stamp and no waiting 6 months for your paperwork to get documented.

C'mon people, let's get this ball rolling, I need more momentum.

Instead of just checking the ATF, how about we petition to have them eradicated as a department entirely?

baby steps....

Montana has already done this though.

How many of you hold NFA regulated items?

I would like to know, because I would like to petition the Texas congress to put BATFE's jurisdiction in check. I want suppressors made in Texas and purchased in Texas, to be regulated by Texas (since that's intrastate commerce, and not interstate). Since we have the most stringent background checks compared to the fed, I would state that this would be an improvement. Also, no $200 federal tax stamp and no waiting 6 months for your paperwork to get documented.

C'mon people, let's get this ball rolling, I need more momentum.