TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

ScottDLS wrote: Why then doesn't the Congress regulate (directly) a national speed limit, drinking age, assault, burglary, and other criminal matters? Why is the Obamacare mandate and Social Security a tax and not a direct regulation of commerce? Why GCA 1968 didn't close the "private intrastate' sale "loophole". Because they thought it was beyond the federal government's authority.

I the fed does dictate a drinking age limit by tying it to road funding:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... ng_Age_Act

No idea on the rest of it... States rights!!!

right they tie it to funding because they don't have the authority to do it directly. it's not a federal crime for a 20 year old to buy beer. It wasn't wasn't a federal crime to drive 56 on an interstate in the from 1974 - 1996, nor is it a federal crime to not wear your seatbelt, but they used funding to get all the states to do it for them.

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.

I don't believe that was the intent of the founders. The commerce clause has been stretched significantly since the 1930's, but nowhere does it say that congress gets to have the first say in intra-state commercial or criminal matters.

It has been the law of the land since the 1930's that the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to do all this. The cases since have steadily expanded that idea. The fight over the intent of the founders in this regard at least has been lost for 80 years.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." Well, except for William O. Douglas and a couple of other eccentrics souls of like mind, the Court has gone along with Congress making all sorts of laws that impinge on freedom of the press, exercise of religion and curtail otherwise free speech

Really, purists have had little influence.

Why then doesn't the Congress regulate (directly) a national speed limit, drinking age, assault, burglary, and other criminal matters? Why is the Obamacare mandate and Social Security a tax and not a direct regulation of commerce? Why GCA 1968 didn't close the "private intrastate' sale "loophole". Because they thought it was beyond the federal government's authority.

I know that in (legal) practice the Constitution means whatever a majority of 9 justices say it means at the time. OK, then the Republic is lost (probably is) and we should all just accept that our rights are only granted or allowed to us by our betters in the federal government. And there is no restriction whatsoever on the power of the central government over the States. The anti-federalist were right in the end...

JALLEN wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.

Not exactly. The states can regulate commerce within its borders only to the extent Congress has not occupied the field. It's very complex, too much for complete discussion on this iPhone, but there are lots of cases. If Congress has acted, the state may not enforce contradictory measures.

I don't believe that was the intent of the founders. The commerce clause has been stretched significantly since the 1930's, but nowhere does it say that congress gets to have the first say in intra-state commercial or criminal matters.

The private sale (i.e. gun show) loophole is really a Constitutional issue. Not a 2nd amendment issue, but an Article I issue (commerce clause). The regulation of private transactions between individuals within a state resides with the State or the People. So if Texas wants to set up a system for private sellers to check each other based on DL, fine. Though I would prefer they don't.