Carrico files HB 69: Tenth Amendment bill

imported post

TFred wrote:

45acpForMe wrote:

I would love a 2-3 burst mode as well as fully auto. But since this gun was invented "after" 1986 that will never happen unless the laws change.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea, mechanically. Are there any weapons that currently do this? It would seem to violate the "0, 1, Infinity" rule, which as far as I know, has never applied to firearms to begin with.

TFred

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it is 2 or the full magazine/belt. Any gun that fires more than 1 round with 1 trigger pull is considered a class III item. (including broken guns, talk to the gun owner sitting in jail because his gun fired multiple rounds and jammed)

I really would prefer a 3-round burst over full auto. It would be nice if the laws allowed that at least. The kicker is that you have to buy a pre-1986 gun so anything invented after that is off limits. We need to get that law off the books. What is the difference between two fully-auto 9mm guns if one is manufactured after 1986 and one before? Same gun, same model same specifications, one is illegal and the other legal if you can find one to buy at 20x the markup (supply & demand).

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

(including broken guns, talk to the gun owner sitting in jail because his gun fired multiple rounds and jammed)

Click to expand...

Which could not be recreated by "professional" firearms experts in a controlled setting. The man is in jail based on hearsay. It is an abomination to justice and good faith.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

45acpForMe wrote:

(including broken guns, talk to the gun owner sitting in jail because his gun fired multiple rounds and jammed)

Click to expand...

Which could not be recreated by "professional" firearms experts in a controlled setting. The man is in jail based on hearsay. It is an abomination to justice and good faith.

Click to expand...

Yes the ATF couldn't reproduce the failure until they switched to soft primers. It is a travesty of justice. Can you say tyranny?

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

What is the difference between two fully-auto 9mm guns if one is manufactured after 1986 and one before? Same gun, same model same specifications, one is illegal and the other legal

Click to expand...

do NOT use logic here.. that is not allowed. It is just like me standin here in va and as soon as I cross the river and stand on the river bank of maryland I am illegal. Same river, within a couple hundred feet of where I was standing before, etc etc etc

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

Yes the ATF couldn't reproduce the failure until they switched to soft primers. It is a travesty of justice. Can you say tyranny?

Click to expand...

Loudly.

imported post

VaLiberty wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

The above is the much-maligned "commerce clause" as it appears under Section 8 - Powers of Congress in the Constitution. Under Section 9 - Limits on Congress, we see this sentence;

"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."


Nowhere in either of these sentences from the Constitution is there any mention of our government controlling commerce in the sense of retrictions or regulations for firearms or for that matter, just about anything else. The first sentence simply begins with, "To regulate Commerce..". This means to "keep and make regular", not to control and dictate.

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the verbiage, nor do I disagree with your points, I am merely highlighting the modern interpretation.

Click to expand...

I wasn't correcting you nor taking you to task at all, sir, and am sorry if it sounded that I was doing that. Unfortunately, what you stated is in fact, how the federal government acts.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

I wasn't correcting you nor taking you to task at all, sir, and am sorry if it sounded that I was doing that. Unfortunately, what you stated is in fact, how the federal government acts.

Click to expand...

As the Germans say, Alles klar!

imported post

ed wrote:

45acpForMe wrote:

What is the difference between two fully-auto 9mm guns if one is manufactured after 1986 and one before? Same gun, same model same specifications, one is illegal and the other legal

Click to expand...

do NOT use logic here.. that is not allowed. It is just like me standin here in va and as soon as I cross the river and stand on the river bank of maryland I am illegal. Same river, within a couple hundred feet of where I was standing before, etc etc etc

Click to expand...

Ed, I understand your sarcasm.

<rant on>

We are supposed to be a nation of laws. If those laws become tyrannical we are, as citizens, to stand up and overthrow the people making those laws (not just the laws themselves). It is our right and our duty. I have been severely lacking in that duty for the last 40 years as one of the sheeple. The question is how do we hold the people making these laws accountable. Elections are our best path right now but eventhe "replacements" quickly burrow into the status-quo and forget reason and logic. I know we can't condone something like an armed march on DC/congress/white-house but something has to wake these folks up. They seem to ignore Tea Parties even if 2 million people show up! (reported as 10,000 by the complacent media which was given freedom specifically to be a watch dog against tyranny)

Personally I would like to see some politicians shot for knowingly breaking their oath to support the constitution which they swore in public. The problem is most of them deserve that option (both parties). So we work to change the laws at federal and state levels but something has got to give. The 10th ammendment push by the states is one form of that battle. As simmonsjoe said before, why are we bowing down to illogical/unconstitutional-federal-law by omiting class III weapons or specific ammo in HB 69?

Screw the federal gubberment. I grew up as a yankee but now think the south had the right idea with secession, just the wrong moral driver (slavery). I think we have a good moral argument for secession today with the overgrown/out-of-control-spending/uncostitutional government in DC!!!!

<rant off>

imported post

ed wrote:

45acpForMe wrote:

What is the difference between two fully-auto 9mm guns if one is manufactured after 1986 and one before? Same gun, same model same specifications, one is illegal and the other legal

Click to expand...

do NOT use logic here.. that is not allowed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What logic is there to a felony conviction for not paying a $200 tax stamp??

How could a 10 year prison sentence not be considered cruel and unusual for not paying for a $200 tax stamp?

Need we go on??

There is no logic to NFA firearms.

imported post

Not to stray from HB69, but I haven't seen restaurant repeal or student carry yet.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Not to stray from HB69, but I haven't seen restaurant repeal or student carry yet.

Click to expand...

I emailed Philip a few days ago about this and this is what he replied:

The restaurant bill is going to be introduced in both the Senate (forVCDL) and in the House. If we do our part, we will hopefully get thispassed.

I'm not worried about no gun signs in restaurants going up in any realnumbers.

On Dec 27, 2009, at 10:43 PM:

> What about the OC requirement for restaurants that serve alcohol?
> That bill passed the legislature this year just to be veto-ed by
> Kaine. It would seem to me to be a slam dunk with the new Gov.
>
> One member was telling me he thought the change in this law would
> worsen the situation where restaurants would openly ban weapons to
> avoid having concealed weapons in their restaurant. What is your
> take on that?

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Not to stray from HB69, but I haven't seen restaurant repeal or student carry yet.

Click to expand...

Restraunt repeal is a carryover from last year. I am awaiting SCCC's bill too.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Not to stray from HB69, but I haven't seen restaurant repeal or student carry yet.

Click to expand...

And without the bloody "as long as they don't drink" part.

What absolute carp.

All-ahead flank on Student Carry, too.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Not to stray from HB69, but I haven't seen restaurant repeal or student carry yet.

Click to expand...

And without the bloody "as long as they don't drink" part.

Click to expand...

Well, it's not repeal unless J3 is deleted entirely.

Anything else is a compromise.

imported post

Should HB 69 have real teeth?

See New Hampshire's enforcement provision:

New Hampshire 'Firearms Freedom Act' threatens government violators with criminal penalties

And it adds teeth absent in counterparts from other states:

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Should HB 69 have real teeth?

See New Hampshire's enforcement provision:

New Hampshire 'Firearms Freedom Act' threatens government violators with criminal penalties

And it adds teeth absent in counterparts from other states:

159-E:4 Penalty.

I. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.
​

Click to expand...

I came from New Hampshire and want to return there. SIGARMS is in Exeter, NH. :celebrate

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Should HB 69 have real teeth?

See New Hampshire's enforcement provision:

New Hampshire 'Firearms Freedom Act' threatens government violators with criminal penalties

And it adds teeth absent in counterparts from other states:

159-E:4 Penalty.

I. Any public servant of the State of New Hampshire as defined in RSA 640:2 that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.
​

Click to expand...

We really need something similar in HB69. It needs teeth.