BREAKING: U.S. Appeals Court: Constitution Gives Right to Carry Gun In Public

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, there will still be not enough Justices to take an AWB case.

It requires four justices and right now there are only two who are interested in contesting State authority to regulate guns.

 

If states have the authority to regulate guns, then any gun made in Texas and bought in Texas by Texans and kept in Texas should have no federal regulation. Same should apply to each state.

 

parts all manufactured in Texas?

haa!!!! funny.

 

You are making assumptions not based in reality (as per usual). Something tells me that if Kavanaugh is confirmed both Alito and Roberts will vote to hear the case, giving them the votes necessary. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

Yes, there is a level of supposition to that on my part, but based in some knowledgeable people's take on the situation as it stands.

 

Montana has a number of firearms manufacturers here building full guns from scratch, AND they have a law in place that the Federal government has zero authority to create regulation on Montana-made guns staying inside Montana. Interesting, that....

 

Another thing you're going to be wrong at.

 

Tick tock.

 

Federal law supercedes State law.

NFA is and other Federal laws are enforced even on guns made 100% in-state and sold in-state.

 

it will be a long time before any new AWB or May Issue cases reach the Supreme Court.

 

I guess you’ve never heard of STI or Laurue Tactical?

 

Love LaRue!

LaRue's world-class AR trigger shop:

 

And a lot of states are starting to push back on that too.

And Federal LE attempting to enforce such laws face arrest and prosecution in Montana.

 

Starting to sweat, Ron?

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

Then show where such has actually been held as the case. Do not bother with the united state supreme court simply not hearing appeals, show where such was actually decided.

 

Then the individual states do not actually have the authority to regulate firearms themselves, but instead must allow the united state federal government to regulate firearms for them.

 

If they are "manufacturing", then they fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and BATF. Doesn't matter if they sell in their state only.

 

They can't. They don't have authority to do so. Federal law trumps state law, always.

unconstitutional. Montana can not prevent federal LE from enforcing federal law in the state.

 

Unless the matter applies to scheduled substances such as marijuana, correct?

If states are allowed to opt out of federal regulations on one subject, they must be allowed to opt out of federal regulations on all subjects. No federal regulations on firearms produced and kept in a specific state, or no states attempting to legalize marijuana. It is one or the other, not both.

 

No. DEA can enforce Federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana. They just to date, have chosen not to.

they aren't allowed to opt out of any federal laws.

Federal law trumps state law, always. Doesn't matter if it's guns, or ganja.

 

Then these states are committing federal felonies and should be prosecuted for such, no matter what percentage of their populations support their illegal actions. The reluctance of the united states federal government to actually pursue such legal action does nothing but suggest that it is acceptable for individual states to opt out of federal-level regulations and restrictions.

 

I guess that explains why recreational Marijuana will never be a reality in any state in the union.

 

I will agree with this portion of your post so long as the state allows open carry. Take my state of California. Open carry is outright banned but most counties freely issue licenses for concealed. Those counties that don’t issue are denying its residents of their 2A.

I do believe it is a States rights issue that the state can deny one form of carry or the other, just cannot deny both.:

 

What is the enumerated power of the federal government that allows the regulation of firearms at the state level.

 

Again, where is that stated and the duties so limited in law?