Statesman
Regular Member
imported post
I just want to get this off my chest, so if there is any value in this whatsoever, someone or some organization will be able to use the info and use it to their advantage. I don't know if these ideas have already been considered by existing American gun manufacturers (Ruger, I'm talking to you), or budding entrepreneurs. I'd predict that sales would be through the roof for such a company, however, if people had more access to firearms sales under an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.
An Idea for Consideration
To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government only has jurisdiction over interstate commerce between states, due to the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. I believe as many do, that this authority is being abused on a massive scale, in order to control what goes on inside states, and to control individuals. I think most, if not all, Federal firearms laws get their authority from this clause of the U.S. Constitution. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the extent to which this strategy could be effective. I'd like to see some comments from lawyers that participate in these forums.
Since firearms dealers obtain products across state lines, and those products themselves are sold across state lines, we've voluntarily entanged ourselves in federal anti-gun and gun control legislation. I believe this must be realized before we can start fixing the problem.
With the Interstate Commerce clause being the first roadblock, the second roadblock is the control of states through Federal dollars, dispensed back to the state from sources such as federal income and various other taxes. States have made themselves dependent on Federal dollars, as if their very existence depends on it.
So, my proposal, however bad it may be, is as follows.
1) It appears individual states still have the ability to "avoid" Federal firearms laws, if a firearms manufacturer only engages in "commerce" within their own state. The business model behind this may not be workable, since it severely limits the customer base. The legal profession would need to be consulted when starting this new business, in order to prevent getting caught up in the web of interstate commerce regulations from the beginning.
2) When the U.S. Congressional pro gun-control legislators realize what's going on, they will attempt to rewrite laws to prevent states from receiving unrelated federal dollars if they do not comply with some "demand" of theirs to restrict firearms usage, or sale. I have no unique solution for this, as addiction to federal money is rampant in nearly all states. All I can suggest here is local activism to reject the federal dollars, and live with it.
A message for the anti-gunners reading this.
For the anti-gunners reading this, don't get your panties in a wad. Under such a strategy to retain local regulatory control, according to the U.S. Constitution, states would still have the ability to regulate all firearms usage, commerce and manufacturing. It's just going to be much harder for you to implement a national agenda that affects all states, as it should be.
If any of this is useful, please pass it along to those it may concern.
- Statesman
I just want to get this off my chest, so if there is any value in this whatsoever, someone or some organization will be able to use the info and use it to their advantage. I don't know if these ideas have already been considered by existing American gun manufacturers (Ruger, I'm talking to you), or budding entrepreneurs. I'd predict that sales would be through the roof for such a company, however, if people had more access to firearms sales under an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.
An Idea for Consideration
To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government only has jurisdiction over interstate commerce between states, due to the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. I believe as many do, that this authority is being abused on a massive scale, in order to control what goes on inside states, and to control individuals. I think most, if not all, Federal firearms laws get their authority from this clause of the U.S. Constitution. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the extent to which this strategy could be effective. I'd like to see some comments from lawyers that participate in these forums.
Since firearms dealers obtain products across state lines, and those products themselves are sold across state lines, we've voluntarily entanged ourselves in federal anti-gun and gun control legislation. I believe this must be realized before we can start fixing the problem.
With the Interstate Commerce clause being the first roadblock, the second roadblock is the control of states through Federal dollars, dispensed back to the state from sources such as federal income and various other taxes. States have made themselves dependent on Federal dollars, as if their very existence depends on it.
So, my proposal, however bad it may be, is as follows.
1) It appears individual states still have the ability to "avoid" Federal firearms laws, if a firearms manufacturer only engages in "commerce" within their own state. The business model behind this may not be workable, since it severely limits the customer base. The legal profession would need to be consulted when starting this new business, in order to prevent getting caught up in the web of interstate commerce regulations from the beginning.
2) When the U.S. Congressional pro gun-control legislators realize what's going on, they will attempt to rewrite laws to prevent states from receiving unrelated federal dollars if they do not comply with some "demand" of theirs to restrict firearms usage, or sale. I have no unique solution for this, as addiction to federal money is rampant in nearly all states. All I can suggest here is local activism to reject the federal dollars, and live with it.
A message for the anti-gunners reading this.
For the anti-gunners reading this, don't get your panties in a wad. Under such a strategy to retain local regulatory control, according to the U.S. Constitution, states would still have the ability to regulate all firearms usage, commerce and manufacturing. It's just going to be much harder for you to implement a national agenda that affects all states, as it should be.
If any of this is useful, please pass it along to those it may concern.
- Statesman