Montana Gun Suit Challenges Federal Authority

[Kid Cid]

With all of this talk of the Fed trying to gain more and more "power", I'd like to see some of this go the way of State's rights, less intrusion by the Federal government, etc. This could be a good step.

 

I'm sorry to say that the precedent has been set. Once the Federal government has stolen power from the Sates, it will never give it back. Oddly enough, you all may than Abraham Lincoln for taking us down this road.

[Perchoutofwater]

I'm sorry to say that the precedent has been set. Once the Federal government has stolen power from the Sates, it will never give it back. Oddly enough, you all may than Abraham Lincoln for taking us down this road.

 

Racist! Dishonest Abe would never trample the Constitution, he is a hero.

[I Like Soup]

I'm sorry to say that the precedent has been set. Once the Federal government has stolen power from the Sates, it will never give it back. Oddly enough, you all may than Abraham Lincoln for taking us down this road.

I'd like to hear what TimC has to say about Lincoln, he is a modern expert on that subject matter.

[westvirginia]

Hey yomama, Furd, et.al., what about this gun decision?

 

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/...us_v_bownds.txt

 

...

OPINION AND ORDER

 

BARBOUR, Chief Judge.

 

The Court has before it the Motion of Defendant Charles M.

Bownds to Dismiss Indictment for Unconstitutionality. The Court,

having considered the motion, the memoranda of the parties and the

arguments of counsel, finds the motion is well taken and

orders the indictment dismissed.

 

Defendant Charles Bownds was indicted for a violation of 18

U.S.C. section 922(o), which reads in its entirety as follows:

 

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be

unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun....

[yo mama]

Hey yomama, Furd, et.al., what about this gun decision?

 

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/...us_v_bownds.txt

I think the district court got it right. If Congress expects statutes passed pursuant to Commerce Clause powers to be constitutional, Congress should be required to at least go through the motions of "studying" the alleged impact the actions being regulated have on commerce. Imagined impact shouldn't be enough. That said, imagined impact has been enough for the Supreme Court in the past. But who knows if the current Supreme Court would go that route, especially after Lopez?

 

I still hate guns. I just cherish the Constitution more. If Congress isn't made to follow the rules because they're regulating something I hate, then I can't expect it'll be required to follow the rules when it wants to regulate the things I love.

Edited October 7, 2009 by yo mama

[Furd]

Hey yomama, Furd, et.al., what about this gun decision?

 

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/...us_v_bownds.txt

 

 

I'll read it later when I get a second.

[westvirginia]

I think the district court got it right. If Congress expects statutes passed pursuant to Commerce Clause powers to be constitutional, Congress should be required to at least go through the motions of "studying" the alleged impact the actions being regulated have on commerce. Imagined impact shouldn't be enough. That said, imagined impact has been enough for the Supreme Court in the past. But who knows if the current Supreme Court would go that route, especially after Lopez?

 

I still hate guns. I just cherish the Constitution more. If Congress isn't made to follow the rules because they're regulating something I hate, then I can't expect it'll be required to follow the rules when it wants to regulate the things I love.

 

Even though I disagree with you, I :heart: you yomama...

[yo mama]

Even though I disagree with you, I :heart: you yomama...

A good liberal defends the Constitution even when doing so makes him throw up in his mouth a little bit.

[Perchoutofwater]

A good liberal defends the Constitution even when doing so makes him throw up in his mouth a little bit.

 

You do tend to be a much better than average liberal. I'm not sure I can go as far as saying good for fear of a little bit of reflux myself.

[yo mama]

You do tend to be a much better than average liberal. I'm not sure I can go as far as saying good for fear of a little bit of reflux myself.

One of the greatest modern feats of the Republican party was redefining the term "liberal" as a dirty word.

[westvirginia]

One of the greatest modern feats of the Republican party was redefining the term "liberal" as a dirty word.

 

I don't like to think in those terms. Libertarians are also known as "classical liberals", as was Bastiat (I think that's the right frog - the economist), Thomas Jefferson, Hobbs. Classically, conservatives defend the status quo. But if you're a statist, you should be sent directly to hell...

[Kid Cid]

I think the district court got it right. If Congress expects statutes passed pursuant to Commerce Clause powers to be constitutional, Congress should be required to at least go through the motions of "studying" the alleged impact the actions being regulated have on commerce. Imagined impact shouldn't be enough. That said, imagined impact has been enough for the Supreme Court in the past. But who knows if the current Supreme Court would go that route, especially after Lopez?

 

I still hate guns. I just cherish the Constitution more. If Congress isn't made to follow the rules because they're regulating something I hate, then I can't expect it'll be required to follow the rules when it wants to regulate the things I love.

That is really what it boils down to right? We are a nation built upon the the premise of the rule of law. Regardless of how we would like to see things played out, every ruling should be based upon laws, precedent and ultimately our Constitution.

[yo mama]

That is really what it boils down to right? We are a nation built upon the the premise of the rule of law. Regardless of how we would like to see things played out, every ruling should be based upon laws, precedent and ultimately our Constitution.

Kid, that's the way things should work. But I think we're grown up enough to admit that the "people" have allowed their desires for specific results overshadow the sanctity of the process of how those results are achieved. It has so infected politicians, media, and the public at large that our only hope is that the judicial system protects us from our own short-sightedness. But I'm not hopeful.

Edited October 7, 2009 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

Kid, that's the way things should work. But I think we're grown up enough to admit that the "people" have allowed their desires for specific results overshadow the sanctity of the process of how those results are achieved. It has so infected politicians, media, and the public at large that our only hope is that the judicial system protects us from our own short-sightedness. But I'm not hopeful.

 

I'm not either. Originally, the word "democrat" was an epithet, for someone who believe the rule of the people was supreme.

 

I got news for you. I have rights. Where my (and everyone else's) rights are concerned YOU HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT! None. Just because you can get the votes of 50% +1 doesn't make you any less wrong. Now, the question is, where does that usurpation of those rights go to the point where we have nothing left to lose? THAT is the question to think about. No one will advocate armed revolution over a couple dollars tax, or speed limits on interstates, but where's that point? Ever thought about that, anyone?

[bpwallace49]

I'm not either. Originally, the word "democrat" was an epithet, for someone who believe the rule of the people was supreme.

 

I got news for you. I have rights. Where my (and everyone else's) rights are concerned YOU HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO VOTE ON IT! None. Just because you can get the votes of 50% +1 doesn't make you any less wrong. Now, the question is, where does that usurpation of those rights go to the point where we have nothing left to lose? THAT is the question to think about. No one will advocate armed revolution over a couple dollars tax, or speed limits on interstates, but where's that point? Ever thought about that, anyone?

 

When they make me visit West Virginia . . . I will be in open revolution . . .

[westvirginia]

When they make me visit West Virginia . . . I will be in open revolution . . .

 

We wouldn't let the likes of you get off the interstate...

[Perchoutofwater]

Kid, that's the way things should work. But I think we're grown up enough to admit that the "people" have allowed their desires for specific results overshadow the sanctity of the process of how those results are achieved. It has so infected politicians, media, and the public at large that our only hope is that the judicial system protects us from our own short-sightedness. But I'm not hopeful.

 

And we are much worse for it. Benjamin Franklin was almost prophetic when wrote:

 

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

 

As it does not look as though we are going to be able to keep our republic. I think we may be the first generation of Americans that have it better than the one following them.

[Yukon Cornelius]

And we are much worse for it. Benjamin Franklin was almost prophetic when wrote:

 

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

 

As it does not look as though we are going to be able to keep our republic. I think we may be the first generation of Americans that have it better than the one following them.

you don't read much u.s. history do you?

[McBoog]

Cool, do you know where I can pick one of those up?

 

You have to get one tailor made, not off the rack. If it doesn't fit just right, your POI could be off on a few of the barrels.

 

All about States Rights and less about guns.

 

It doesn't surprise me that it started with "guns", but I expect it to permeate into many other issues that States Rights believers feel need to be pushed! I, like many other constructionists, feel that a large, centralized Federal Government is dangerous to our freedom. This past election cycle has proven this to be the case (and it is not "just" Barry O I am talking about). These next mid-terms are going to be fascinating.