Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,639 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Law passed in Boulder, CO to register "AR" type rifles to prove they were owned prior to the law being passed. A magazine capacity law accompanies it. The first big bite toward gun confiscation is what was formerly a very firearm friendly state. They must feel that the billions in marijuana taxes will help them fend off the legal challenges to their 2nd Amendment violating laws.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/...lk68CJP_L2GMnFsfJSL9LbGMp-usPxbILImoV1jwoLG9w
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
It's disgusting. It's time the feds start challenging these issues as 2nd amendment violations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,091 Posts
These states are slowly and methodically taking our rights away. Its as if they are accomplishing this little by little staying under the radar. The Fed Gov./ Supreme court has to step in to put a stop to it or we are all going to lose are right to bear arms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,232 Posts
Fed's need to stop it?

They're IN ON It! The new group coming in in January sure won't stop it.

Actually there is existing federal law about marijuana production and sale. Not stopping that, are they?

All the Best,
D. White
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,245 Posts
Might be time to lock and load the legal teams to start suing the Hell out of municipalities under 2A and Equal treatment clauses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,912 Posts
I'm going to say......


.....no thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,490 Posts
Wonder where the NRA and other 2A organizations are. Something this blatant should be easily fought in the courts. Tenth amendment applies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taurus1965

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,960 Posts
The Second Amendment Foundation is the Pit Bull of our organizations. The Gun Owners of America are truly, no compromise and the National Rifle Association is our D.C. lobbyist.
They all fill a void, but if you want to sue the snot out of an anti gunner state and win, get the S.A.F. involved.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,495 Posts
There really isn't anything for the Second Amendment here. Remember, the Second Amendment (as well as the others) are reminders of prohibitions on the new federal government. The states did not create a Bill of Rights to bind themselves, it was to remind the new federal government of authority it was never granted. It wasn't until much later that the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the people, and decided to start applying SOME of the restrictions on the new federal government against US. Those liberties our founders fought so hard to remain with the people and the states, this rogue government now forces upon us ourselves.

Of course what is one of those prohibitions on the new federal government that the Supreme Court does not force against the people? Why, it's the Second Amendment, of course. When the Supreme Court wants to control the people, it applies federal prohibitions against us. When it doesn't serve their purpose, it does not.

The citizens of Colorado must look to their own constitution to remind their state government of the authority it was granted by its own people. If the people of Colorado did not prohibit the state government from meddling in their rights to weapons, they will be forced to live with what they have created.

Good luck, neighbors.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,639 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
There really isn't anything for the Second Amendment here. Remember, the Second Amendment (as well as the others) are reminders of prohibitions on the new federal government. The states did not create a Bill of Rights to bind themselves, it was to remind the new federal government of authority it was never granted. It wasn't until much later that the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the people, and decided to start applying SOME of the restrictions on the new federal government against US. Those liberties our founders fought so hard to remain with the people and the states, this rogue government now forces upon us ourselves.

Of course what is one of those prohibitions on the new federal government that the Supreme Court does not force against the people? Why, it's the Second Amendment, of course. When the Supreme Court wants to control the people, it applies federal prohibitions against us. When it doesn't serve their purpose, it does not.

The citizens of Colorado must look to their own constitution to remind their state government of the authority it was granted by its own people. If the people of Colorado did not prohibit the state government from meddling in their rights to weapons, they will be forced to live with what they have created.

Good luck, neighbors.
Not being a constitutional attorney, or any kind of attorney for that matter, I do think that the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be usurped or superseded by any particular state or municipality. This in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In this case the "powers" are the right to keep and bear arms.

Ample cases by the SCOTUS such as "McDonald" and "Heller" support my theory.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,495 Posts
Not being a constitutional attorney, or any kind of attorney for that matter, I do think that the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be usurped or superseded by any particular state or municipality. This in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In this case the "powers" are the right to keep and bear arms.

Ample cases by the SCOTUS such as "McDonald" and "Heller" support my theory.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The Second Amendment reminds the new federal government it cannot meddle in the people's right to bear arms. The Tenth Amendment reminds the new federal government that any authority not granted it in the Constitution, remains with the people and our states. Therefore, since the federal government was prohibited from meddling in that right, the Tenth Amendment reminds the federal government that the authority to meddle in the right to keep and bear arms remains with the people and our states.

Nothing in the Constitution grants that authority to the new federal government. States never yielded their authority to regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

Again, the Supreme Court selectively determines what federal prohibitions to apply against the states. The Heller case is a very interesting case, as it did not involve the right of a state to regulate anything. It was a pure federal case, being in the federal District of Columbia. The Supreme Court surely did rule correctly on this one, in that the federal government has no authority to meddle in the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. States, on the other hand, retained all authority to regulate anything and everything not prohibited by its own citizens, and not yielded to the federal government. States yielded the authority to create a military and the authority to regulate interstate commerce, but not much else. They retained (and have never yielded) the authority to regulate personal weapons.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
37,639 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
So how did this happen?

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeltaBravoKS

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,495 Posts
So how did this happen?

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

https://www.britannica.com/event/McDonald-v-City-of-Chicago
Yes, as I indicated, the Supreme Court selectively decides what federal prohibitions to put against us and our states. Some time in the 1900's the Supreme Court decided that the states agreed in the Fourteenth Amendment that federal prohibitions applied to us and our states. Of course, the states never granted that authority to the Supreme Court, but they took it from us anyway.

The Supreme Court has no authority to force federal prohibitions on our states, yet they continue to do it time and time again. Of course, they only do it selectively. They only apply what suits their purpose. They give the people a tidbit, thinking they protect rights, but all they've done is taken authority from us and our states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,935 Posts
If we can't have the whole cake well then we will just nibble at the corners. See how it will be done?

I've also been saying all along all they, congress, has to do is create more laws that equate to Felonies! Soon we will all be a felon of some sort and not allowed to own firearms! Like Felony Spitting of a Bio-Hazard!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeltaBravoKS

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,443 Posts
Gosh, if that crap comes to my neck o' the woods, my AR-15 identifies as a flower pot. Don't need not steenkin' certification.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top