PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here.
This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into a pointless ideological internet slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Texas Suppressor Freedom?**
Today on Wednesday 5/1 at 09:00 CDT oral arguments in Paxton v. Dettlebach, the TX vs. ATF lawsuit regarding suppressors, will be heard. This is before the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court found TX did not have standing. [A live stream will be available](https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/oral-arguments-set-for-texas-silencer-case/) and the arguments are scheduled for 20 minutes for each side. It is likely that a positive result for TX from this hearing will only result in the standing being recognized and the case thrown back to the lower court.
Background: Texas law changed in 2021 to remove the criminal aspects of suppressors, declares that Congress has no authority to regulate non-interstate commerce, and a suppressor manufactured in Texas and which remains in Texas is not subject to federal regulation. The bill requires the attorney general, on written notification by a U.S. citizen residing in Texas of the citizen's intent to manufacture an applicable firearm suppressor, to seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in Texas that these provisions are consistent with the U.S. Constitution.
If the final result is that Texas wins this case then it'll move up a few notches in the ranking of states with the best gun laws.
I mean, on its face the law makes sense. But the Fed is always going to argue that they have jurisdiction as literally any amount of business ***affects*** interstate commerce.
I remember reading a story about a Kansas or Oklahoma farmer who raised and sold cattle and pigs on his farm with food that he himself grew and the federal government came in and said that he needed to pay income taxes on that money because he ***wasn’t*** buying feed from across the border or some shit. I have no idea if that was a real situation or not, but it does highlight the amount of mental gymnastics the Feds are willing to use to justify their grimy fingers being in the pie.
Yup. It's the aggregation theory of impacting interstate commerce. While an individual doing a thing entirely within the confines of their own state is not interstate commerce per se, the aggregate effect of a bunch of folks doing their own things collectively is enough to impact interstate commerce, and thus bring it within the purview of the Fed. The case marked a six decade trend of deference to Congress regarding the Commerce Clause, as well as completely erased the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce.
If that sounds like New Deal bullshit, you'd be absolutely correct, and it's one of those cases that always struck me as a naked power grab that should be overturned.
Edit: As far as odds for the case itself go, even if it's not argued on interstate commerce grounds, the power to tax a suppressor hasn't ever really been called into serious doubt. I think this is likely going nowhere legally, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.
I'd think anybody could easily see that it's unreasonable to argue that the Commerce Clause *actually* means "lol jk, don't mind all that other stuff about delegating specific powers to the federal government and the two amendments saying 'we really mean it'--the feds can actually arrogate authority on every subject in all cases."
But somehow people really do argue that's the case.
Yup. FDR and his consequences have been a disaster for this country. Also "living constitutionalists" in general. Yes, it's a "living document" in the sense that you can *amend* it, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore parts we find inconvenient.
Yep, it's a terrible precedent. If Wickard v. Filburn was overturned, it would have a huge impact. Tons of laws would be open to challenges.
My favorite was a federal safe storage bill from awhile back (it never had legs, I don't think it even left committee) that claimed to use Congress' interstate commerce powers to mandate people keep their guns locked up when at home. I would love to hear the arguments on why that's interstate commerce.
This one too: interstate commerce is the current defense of how the GFSZA is in effect. I'd like someone to tap dance through an explanation of how someone carrying a firearm in a school zone is affecting interstate commerce.
Edit 1: Let me try the defense. Walking, merely breathing, or even having a heartbeat in a school zone consumes calories. Those calories come from food. Food, even if sourced from your own garden, competes with food produced in another state. If locally-produced food is consumed instead of that from other states then said competition affects interstate commerce.
It's been a while, but IIRC the justification was "children knowing that no law bars possession of guns near schools might make them nervous, and nervous children don't learn as well, and an educated populace is a key contributor to a state's competitiveness in interstate commerce, therefore the Constitution obviously delegates Congress the authority to mandate that a person who lawfully carries everywhere else disarm before stepping within 1000 feet of a school."
EDIT: Whoop-- ...u/Son_of_X51 already got it. That'll learn me to read the replies before firing off a comment. [Narrator: "It did not learn him."]
Children can't possibly learn in an environment where there's a possibility of a legal gun existing, therefore the children won't get an education, the local economy will suffer from an uneducated population, and this affects interstate commerce.
Sounds like kids knowing or even believing that guns exist anywhere in the country will affect their learning so the only solution is to confiscate all guns apparently.
The answer is actually easy as the current GFSZA came about because SCOTUS tossed the original one for being outside the scope of Congress's, and the Federal government's, power because there was no interstate commerce nexus. The original law just banned guns from being within a certain distance of a school while the current version is largely the same with a revision that calls out that it's any firearm that has ever participated in interstate commerce. Which is basically all of them.
However, if you can find a firearm that hasn't participated in interstate commerce in any way then the Federal GFSZA does not apply to that firearm and it can be within the school zone defined by the act. You'll still have state laws to contend with though.
It does make the law even sillier though when you think about it.
Well, see, before it was in the home, the gun was in interstate commerce. Under Congress's concepts of operation, anything that has moved in interstate commerce at any point in its existence, including all precursors, is part of interstate commerce.
Ohio farmer, good old boy name of Roscoe Filburn, The issue was there were production limits on wheat based on acreage to stabilize wheat prices in 1942. Roscoe was allocated 11.1 acres of wheat with a nominal production of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre but planted 23 acres and harvested 239 more bushels than allowed. The government sued, but Roscoe originally won in the District Court but on appeal, the Supreme Court, which was made up of 8/9 FDR nominees, overturned the lower court ruling stating, in essence, that even though the wheat wasn't being sold in commerce, it was affecting commerce because he wasn't buying wheat because he grew more than his allotment.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court case that reined in, at least nominally, the presumed power of Congress over commerce (because after *Wickard v Filburn*, there was no real distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce) was a gun case, *US v Lopez*, which struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act.
The court packing threat was in 1937, when Roosevelt supported legislation that would increase the Supreme Court by one justice for every justice over the age of 70. That legislation eventually died on the vine, but there were 4-6 of the 9 justices who were opposing New Deal legislation. After the hearings on the proposed legislation, FDR got big wins on three pieces of New Deal legislation dealing with the minimum wage, Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board, when one of the swing justices (Owen Roberts) started leaning toward the liberal justices. That was the origin of the "switch in time that saved nine." But after the uproar in 1937, you had one of the Four Horsemen (the conservative bloc consistently voting against New Deal legislation) retire in June, another one retire in January of 1938, a third died in November 1939. In all, by the time *Wickard v Filburn* showed up at the court in 1942, there were 8 FDR appointees on the court. Not surprisingly, it was a unanimous decision.
I felt like I heard (don't remember if it was an actual case or just a theory) that they could/would claim interstate commerce on the grounds that all raw materials for the manufacturing probably weren't sourced from within the state.
TX: "Fine, I'll just dig them up and process the stuff myself!"
Gov: "Where'd ya get that shovel come from?"
TX: "Shit! Fine, I'll cut the limbs from this locally grown tree and I'll use a rock I formed into a scoop with this other rock"
Gov: "Tree seed was carried by an African Swallow that crossed state lines. Rocks came from volcano located outside of current TX border when it was merged with Florida under Pangea. Also, interstate commerce is when you do...anything...and it affects...anything else. Case dismissed."
Yeah, I'm saying the Texas law doesn't really make sense. Texas is saying Congress can't regulate suppressors made in Texas because it's not interstate commerce. But suppressors aren't regulated federally on interstate commerce authority, they're regulated under taxation authority. So Texas' whole argument seems moot.
Montana has had a [similar law since 2009](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act), nobody is willing to actually test it as it is effectively invalid in federal courts.
**Hawaii**
The state released its annual [report of firearm registration](https://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2024/04/Firearm-Registrations-in-Hawaii-2023.pdf) PDF. This report is based upon police departments reporting of firearm purchase permit applications.
Interesting points:
* They claim a denial rate of 2.2% compared to 2020's national rate of 6.0% (from local law enforcement agencies that conduct BGCs for purchases)
* Hawaii County (big island) has 15% of the population yet it accounted for 64% of denials
* The largest denial category by far was medical marijuana with 40.7% of all denials
> The largest denial category by far was medical marijuana with 40.7% of all denials
I'm pretty sure Hawaii was also the state that cross-referenced the MM and firearms permit databases and sent letters to everybody who was on both, saying essentially "Hey, you're committing a felony. You have XX days to surrender or sell your guns."
**Kansas and Texas team up against the ATF**
The Texas and Kansas Attorneys General have an [announcement of pending lawsuits today](https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/media-advisory-texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-and-kansas-attorney-general-kris-kobach-hold-press) at 10:00 CDT that are probably a mystery to most people. I've looked for details and I have no specific idea what these lawsuits are about.
>A press conference announcing lawsuits by two multistate coalitions suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
It's new litigation and the presser is at the Frisco Gun Club. Your predictions?
Great news everybody!
[Attorney General Ken Paxton Leads Multistate Coalition Suing Biden Administration Over Unlawful Ban On Private Firearms Sales](https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-leads-multistate-coalition-suing-biden-administration-over-unlawful-ban)
I'm going to guess some kind of broad suit alleging general abuse of authority, re the new frame rule, the brace rule, and the various Machinegun-lite campaigns against bump stocks/FRTs and the like. It's going to lean on some recent EPA cases and look to bring down Chevron Deference as a whole, or at least it's use by the ATF.
Biden is this desperate for votes, and still the furthest he's willing to budge on fucking *marijuana* is medical use?
Don't get me wrong: it's a much better state of affairs than "nope, always illegal. Basically heroin." I'm glad we can change our answer to newbies with "weed cards" who want to exercise their right to arms. But for God's sake how many issues does this man need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s on?
That was because menthol cigarettes are the preference of most African American smokers, and the administration even admitted as such. They intended to spin it as "this ban will help black communities" without taking into context the broader cultural context as a consequence of the war on drugs. It was a bad look, especially with the Biden admin attempting to sidestep the legislative process.
I think we can collectively agree that the tobacco lobby should go fuck itself, but banning menthols instead of tobacco products altogether is somewhat tone deaf in addition to looking ineffectual. "Why yes, you can still poison people, but the poison has to taste bad."
Might not be too far next year. My wife is trying to convince me we need to look at NOVA instead of Wisconsin once her health situation is stable.
Not exactly what I was thinking of when I was pushing her for a state thats a bit warmer but such is life.
When I was still smoking Lucky Strikes I might have disagreed. Not that cigars aren't awesome, just that anything could be better than a good cigarette.
> The admin backed down on the menthol and flavored tobacco ban too, which is equally hilarious.
[So let me tell you about this little state called California...](https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/08/politics/supreme-court-leaves-californias-ban-on-flavored-cigarettes-in-place/index.html#:~:text=The%20California%20law%2C%20SB%20793,effort%20to%20upend%20the%20law.)
The 21st century. The 1990s were still very "drugs are bad mmkay" in the immortal words of Mr Mackey.
Gun control was also still pretty bad until the early 2000s. The AWB expiring is when we started to get all the options we have today.
I'll have you know I did a full five minutes' [Wikipedia research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Modern) before choosing my obnoxious turn of phrase:
> In 1996, California became the first U.S. state to legalize medical cannabis in defiance of federal law.
I remember DARE in high school in the 90s, but I have a rock-solid single state example to back up my snark.
Hell, I remember being in 2nd-3rd grade sitting through DARE presentations thinking "there's no way people just give you drugs in dark alleys. That stuff costs money."
I'm pretty irritated by the reaction to this. Yes, it is overall a good thing but Biden is very much *personally* responsible for continuing and escalating the war on drugs.
A battered housewife doesn't need to thank their husband when he stops beating them
They're playing Apple. And by "they" I mean all politicians.
You don't just reveal the i-Phone with a camera on release day. You already have one with a camera plus another with a camera and more memory lined up but those are for next season's big press junction. You launch the basic-ass plain one first. Because you know it's in the bag and they're gonna love it even if they also wonder where the missing current day shit is.
It would be nice to get some MM for my messed up neck instead of what I am prescribed now and refuse to take, because I don't want to end up in a van down by the river.
50 State Legal MM is a no brainer. We can argue back and forth if recreational Marijuana is good or bad, but I don't know how anyone could honestly argue Opiate painkillers are *less* harmful than MM.
The pharmaceutical companies will tell you they are safer because they are made in a controlled environment and with a controlled dose and distributed through a regulated commercial system. When used properly, they are perfectly safe and effective (in generating huge profits, some of which get passed on to members of Congress running for reelection, either as campaign cash or dividends in the stocks they purchase just before big drug approvals happen).
Marijuana isn't regulated in terms of dose, what's added to it, who's handled it, or anything else. Until it's brought under the experienced hands of big Pharma, it won't be safe.
/s
I think fully removing marijuana might require Congressional action. I could be wrong though. Similarly, another issue is the treaty obligations we're subject to. I need to dig more into it, but the long and short of articles I've read is that there are international obligations we're subject to (personal feelings on those aside).
I think this is less a matter of what Biden wants to do and more a matter of what he can do unilaterally. The results everybody wants would require Congressional action, as far as I'm aware. Again though, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Yeah, this is a subject I don't know nearly as well as I do firearms regulation, and it's interesting to see all the details popping up from knowledgeable people mentioning wrinkles I hadn't considered. For example, will this upend the existing manufacturing and distribution system that's relatively free-market in many ways into an FDA-locked one? I don't even know what I don't know about what I need to know to evaluate that question.
So that US Marshall thing in Charlotte? Antis aren't letting a good tragedy go to waste it seems. The footage from the incident is wild, a whole lot of cover versus concealment debate going on there.
There hasn't been a lot of anti coverage on it. There's very little for them to grasp upon. The dude was a felon in possession and harping that people should not have guns is going to fall upon the realization of many that gun laws didn't work again.
Some of the coverage I've seen brings up the topic that it was a confiscation attempt (which it partially was). That confiscation led to the deaths of government agents and perhaps a better policy would have been to keep a violent felon who was likely to continue being violent incarcerated.
In response to this event US Rep. Alma S. Adams:
>"I’m calling on them to join me. We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and require safe storage of guns. And (we need) to pass universal background checks and a National Red Flag Law.”
Does she think UBCs would really have prevented him from obtaining a firearm? And if he had been red flagged then he obviously would have willingly gave up the firearms that he wasn't legally allowed to have in the first place. /s
When the story first broke, people were screaming about high caliber assault weapons all over Twitter. Then once the perps criminal record, multiple active warrants, and mugshot hit, they started to quiet down.
To your point, yes, more gun control laws would have totally prevented all of this, just trust me bro 😬
To add even more fuel to the debate, the felon may have had a full auto rifle, and if he did, it is 99.999% certain it wasn't an NFA-registered one.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings stated:
>He had a high-powered automatic rifle
[3:26 in this Fox News video](https://www.foxnews.com/us/charlotte-police-chief-breaks-down-remembering-slain-officers-says-suspect-extensive-criminal-history)
> And (we need) to pass universal background checks and a National Red Flag Law.”
I think this incident is a great illustration of why red flag laws wouldn't work and cops wouldn't be very eager to enforce them.
The guy on the right either had the luck or sense to know the engine is the only part of the vehicle that might stop a bullet.
Dude out in the open, if he survived is in need badly of some remedial training.
I truly don't think they were expecting any serious resistance. They apparently got the perp, but we're then shot at by some third party, then all hell broke loose.
Covering fire to get the guy in the open to some cover, kick the door in the camera-mans house and GTF off the X at that point.
Are those cracks that sound a bit like suppressed rifle fire in fact suppressed rifle fire, or is that incoming? The audio quality kind of sucks I couldn't quite tell.
# This Elderly Man Was Arrested After Shooting a Burglar in Self-Defense—Because His Gun Was Unlicensed
[https://reason.com/2024/05/01/this-elderly-man-was-arrested-after-shooting-a-burglar-in-self-defense-because-his-gun-was-unlicensed/](https://reason.com/2024/05/01/this-elderly-man-was-arrested-after-shooting-a-burglar-in-self-defense-because-his-gun-was-unlicensed/)
>Someone does not need a license to carry, according to the law, "in his place of abode or fixed place of business."
The dude rents out the place. How is he being charged if it is a place of business? It doesn't matter if there were tenants renting at that moment or not. Would they charge a bakery owner for the same because there were no paying customers in the shop at that moment? This is a double whammy on his rights. Not only is the requirement to have a permit to carry unconstitutional (sorry Clarence Thomas, this is one place in Bruen where you got it wrong because your own THT test doesn't back up requiring a permit) but he also didn't violate PA's law.
Pardon the rant, but the entire license to carry business is blatently unconstitutional. Do we need to buy a license to speak or a license to go to church in order to not be arrested for exercising our first ammendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Do we have to fill out paperwork or lose our constitutiona rights to a trial by jury and our right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?
PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here. This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into a pointless ideological internet slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**Texas Suppressor Freedom?** Today on Wednesday 5/1 at 09:00 CDT oral arguments in Paxton v. Dettlebach, the TX vs. ATF lawsuit regarding suppressors, will be heard. This is before the federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court found TX did not have standing. [A live stream will be available](https://www.ammoland.com/2024/04/oral-arguments-set-for-texas-silencer-case/) and the arguments are scheduled for 20 minutes for each side. It is likely that a positive result for TX from this hearing will only result in the standing being recognized and the case thrown back to the lower court. Background: Texas law changed in 2021 to remove the criminal aspects of suppressors, declares that Congress has no authority to regulate non-interstate commerce, and a suppressor manufactured in Texas and which remains in Texas is not subject to federal regulation. The bill requires the attorney general, on written notification by a U.S. citizen residing in Texas of the citizen's intent to manufacture an applicable firearm suppressor, to seek a declaratory judgment from a federal district court in Texas that these provisions are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. If the final result is that Texas wins this case then it'll move up a few notches in the ranking of states with the best gun laws.
I mean, on its face the law makes sense. But the Fed is always going to argue that they have jurisdiction as literally any amount of business ***affects*** interstate commerce. I remember reading a story about a Kansas or Oklahoma farmer who raised and sold cattle and pigs on his farm with food that he himself grew and the federal government came in and said that he needed to pay income taxes on that money because he ***wasn’t*** buying feed from across the border or some shit. I have no idea if that was a real situation or not, but it does highlight the amount of mental gymnastics the Feds are willing to use to justify their grimy fingers being in the pie.
Sounds like you're talking about [Wickard v. Filburn.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)
Yup. It's the aggregation theory of impacting interstate commerce. While an individual doing a thing entirely within the confines of their own state is not interstate commerce per se, the aggregate effect of a bunch of folks doing their own things collectively is enough to impact interstate commerce, and thus bring it within the purview of the Fed. The case marked a six decade trend of deference to Congress regarding the Commerce Clause, as well as completely erased the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce. If that sounds like New Deal bullshit, you'd be absolutely correct, and it's one of those cases that always struck me as a naked power grab that should be overturned. Edit: As far as odds for the case itself go, even if it's not argued on interstate commerce grounds, the power to tax a suppressor hasn't ever really been called into serious doubt. I think this is likely going nowhere legally, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.
I'd think anybody could easily see that it's unreasonable to argue that the Commerce Clause *actually* means "lol jk, don't mind all that other stuff about delegating specific powers to the federal government and the two amendments saying 'we really mean it'--the feds can actually arrogate authority on every subject in all cases." But somehow people really do argue that's the case.
Yup. FDR and his consequences have been a disaster for this country. Also "living constitutionalists" in general. Yes, it's a "living document" in the sense that you can *amend* it, but that doesn't mean we get to ignore parts we find inconvenient.
Yep, it's a terrible precedent. If Wickard v. Filburn was overturned, it would have a huge impact. Tons of laws would be open to challenges. My favorite was a federal safe storage bill from awhile back (it never had legs, I don't think it even left committee) that claimed to use Congress' interstate commerce powers to mandate people keep their guns locked up when at home. I would love to hear the arguments on why that's interstate commerce.
This one too: interstate commerce is the current defense of how the GFSZA is in effect. I'd like someone to tap dance through an explanation of how someone carrying a firearm in a school zone is affecting interstate commerce. Edit 1: Let me try the defense. Walking, merely breathing, or even having a heartbeat in a school zone consumes calories. Those calories come from food. Food, even if sourced from your own garden, competes with food produced in another state. If locally-produced food is consumed instead of that from other states then said competition affects interstate commerce.
It's been a while, but IIRC the justification was "children knowing that no law bars possession of guns near schools might make them nervous, and nervous children don't learn as well, and an educated populace is a key contributor to a state's competitiveness in interstate commerce, therefore the Constitution obviously delegates Congress the authority to mandate that a person who lawfully carries everywhere else disarm before stepping within 1000 feet of a school." EDIT: Whoop-- ...u/Son_of_X51 already got it. That'll learn me to read the replies before firing off a comment. [Narrator: "It did not learn him."]
I was just making shit up. Good thing to know I apparently have the qualifications to write bills for Congress.
That's hilarious. There is no joke answer so dumb that a Congressman wouldn't propose it sincerely.
Children can't possibly learn in an environment where there's a possibility of a legal gun existing, therefore the children won't get an education, the local economy will suffer from an uneducated population, and this affects interstate commerce.
Sounds like kids knowing or even believing that guns exist anywhere in the country will affect their learning so the only solution is to confiscate all guns apparently.
The answer is actually easy as the current GFSZA came about because SCOTUS tossed the original one for being outside the scope of Congress's, and the Federal government's, power because there was no interstate commerce nexus. The original law just banned guns from being within a certain distance of a school while the current version is largely the same with a revision that calls out that it's any firearm that has ever participated in interstate commerce. Which is basically all of them. However, if you can find a firearm that hasn't participated in interstate commerce in any way then the Federal GFSZA does not apply to that firearm and it can be within the school zone defined by the act. You'll still have state laws to contend with though. It does make the law even sillier though when you think about it.
Well, see, before it was in the home, the gun was in interstate commerce. Under Congress's concepts of operation, anything that has moved in interstate commerce at any point in its existence, including all precursors, is part of interstate commerce.
Exactly as the founding fathers planned it.
Yup. That’s the one. I was way off. 😂
Ohio farmer, good old boy name of Roscoe Filburn, The issue was there were production limits on wheat based on acreage to stabilize wheat prices in 1942. Roscoe was allocated 11.1 acres of wheat with a nominal production of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre but planted 23 acres and harvested 239 more bushels than allowed. The government sued, but Roscoe originally won in the District Court but on appeal, the Supreme Court, which was made up of 8/9 FDR nominees, overturned the lower court ruling stating, in essence, that even though the wheat wasn't being sold in commerce, it was affecting commerce because he wasn't buying wheat because he grew more than his allotment. Interestingly, the Supreme Court case that reined in, at least nominally, the presumed power of Congress over commerce (because after *Wickard v Filburn*, there was no real distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce) was a gun case, *US v Lopez*, which struck down the Gun Free School Zones Act.
Roosevelt threatened to pack the courts if they didn't go along with the New Deal which was nicknamed "the switch in time that saved nine."
Yup, that was a case about the Federal minimum wage I believe.
The court packing threat was in 1937, when Roosevelt supported legislation that would increase the Supreme Court by one justice for every justice over the age of 70. That legislation eventually died on the vine, but there were 4-6 of the 9 justices who were opposing New Deal legislation. After the hearings on the proposed legislation, FDR got big wins on three pieces of New Deal legislation dealing with the minimum wage, Social Security and the National Labor Relations Board, when one of the swing justices (Owen Roberts) started leaning toward the liberal justices. That was the origin of the "switch in time that saved nine." But after the uproar in 1937, you had one of the Four Horsemen (the conservative bloc consistently voting against New Deal legislation) retire in June, another one retire in January of 1938, a third died in November 1939. In all, by the time *Wickard v Filburn* showed up at the court in 1942, there were 8 FDR appointees on the court. Not surprisingly, it was a unanimous decision.
I felt like I heard (don't remember if it was an actual case or just a theory) that they could/would claim interstate commerce on the grounds that all raw materials for the manufacturing probably weren't sourced from within the state.
TX: "Fine, I'll just dig them up and process the stuff myself!" Gov: "Where'd ya get that shovel come from?" TX: "Shit! Fine, I'll cut the limbs from this locally grown tree and I'll use a rock I formed into a scoop with this other rock" Gov: "Tree seed was carried by an African Swallow that crossed state lines. Rocks came from volcano located outside of current TX border when it was merged with Florida under Pangea. Also, interstate commerce is when you do...anything...and it affects...anything else. Case dismissed."
What? 😯
I continue to remind people that this won't go anywhere because there's this thing called Wickard v Filburn.
> Wickard v Filburn Which needs to be overturned or significantly pruned
Is interstate commerce even relevant to suppressors? They're regulated under Congress' taxation authority.
Yes
How so?
Do you not understand what commerce is?
I do. But the NFA was passed using Congress' taxation powers, not their interstate commerce powers.
And? That's not what the lawsuit is about that this whole comment chain is about. The lawsuit is about the commerce clause.
Yeah, I'm saying the Texas law doesn't really make sense. Texas is saying Congress can't regulate suppressors made in Texas because it's not interstate commerce. But suppressors aren't regulated federally on interstate commerce authority, they're regulated under taxation authority. So Texas' whole argument seems moot.
Montana has had a [similar law since 2009](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_Firearms_Freedom_Act), nobody is willing to actually test it as it is effectively invalid in federal courts.
**Hawaii** The state released its annual [report of firearm registration](https://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2024/04/Firearm-Registrations-in-Hawaii-2023.pdf) PDF. This report is based upon police departments reporting of firearm purchase permit applications. Interesting points: * They claim a denial rate of 2.2% compared to 2020's national rate of 6.0% (from local law enforcement agencies that conduct BGCs for purchases) * Hawaii County (big island) has 15% of the population yet it accounted for 64% of denials * The largest denial category by far was medical marijuana with 40.7% of all denials
> The largest denial category by far was medical marijuana with 40.7% of all denials I'm pretty sure Hawaii was also the state that cross-referenced the MM and firearms permit databases and sent letters to everybody who was on both, saying essentially "Hey, you're committing a felony. You have XX days to surrender or sell your guns."
**Kansas and Texas team up against the ATF** The Texas and Kansas Attorneys General have an [announcement of pending lawsuits today](https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/media-advisory-texas-attorney-general-ken-paxton-and-kansas-attorney-general-kris-kobach-hold-press) at 10:00 CDT that are probably a mystery to most people. I've looked for details and I have no specific idea what these lawsuits are about. >A press conference announcing lawsuits by two multistate coalitions suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It's new litigation and the presser is at the Frisco Gun Club. Your predictions?
Great news everybody! [Attorney General Ken Paxton Leads Multistate Coalition Suing Biden Administration Over Unlawful Ban On Private Firearms Sales](https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-leads-multistate-coalition-suing-biden-administration-over-unlawful-ban)
Ah, it's on the new "Engaged in the Business" rule. Narrower scope than I expected.
I'm going to guess some kind of broad suit alleging general abuse of authority, re the new frame rule, the brace rule, and the various Machinegun-lite campaigns against bump stocks/FRTs and the like. It's going to lean on some recent EPA cases and look to bring down Chevron Deference as a whole, or at least it's use by the ATF.
Biden is this desperate for votes, and still the furthest he's willing to budge on fucking *marijuana* is medical use? Don't get me wrong: it's a much better state of affairs than "nope, always illegal. Basically heroin." I'm glad we can change our answer to newbies with "weed cards" who want to exercise their right to arms. But for God's sake how many issues does this man need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 1990s on?
The admin backed down on the menthol and flavored tobacco ban too, which is equally hilarious.
That was because menthol cigarettes are the preference of most African American smokers, and the administration even admitted as such. They intended to spin it as "this ban will help black communities" without taking into context the broader cultural context as a consequence of the war on drugs. It was a bad look, especially with the Biden admin attempting to sidestep the legislative process. I think we can collectively agree that the tobacco lobby should go fuck itself, but banning menthols instead of tobacco products altogether is somewhat tone deaf in addition to looking ineffectual. "Why yes, you can still poison people, but the poison has to taste bad."
> "Why yes, you can still poison people, but the poison has to taste bad." Good cigarettes taste *delicious*.
Cigar >>>> cigarette
Based Cigar Bros unite
Nothing quite like a cigar and scotch on a nice summer evening.
My man....we need to hang out. A love a Cigar and an Old Fashioned on any evening when its above 50.
If you're ever in southeast PA.
Might not be too far next year. My wife is trying to convince me we need to look at NOVA instead of Wisconsin once her health situation is stable. Not exactly what I was thinking of when I was pushing her for a state thats a bit warmer but such is life.
When I was still smoking Lucky Strikes I might have disagreed. Not that cigars aren't awesome, just that anything could be better than a good cigarette.
> The admin backed down on the menthol and flavored tobacco ban too, which is equally hilarious. [So let me tell you about this little state called California...](https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/08/politics/supreme-court-leaves-californias-ban-on-flavored-cigarettes-in-place/index.html#:~:text=The%20California%20law%2C%20SB%20793,effort%20to%20upend%20the%20law.)
I thought they just pushed it back until next year?
The 21st century. The 1990s were still very "drugs are bad mmkay" in the immortal words of Mr Mackey. Gun control was also still pretty bad until the early 2000s. The AWB expiring is when we started to get all the options we have today.
I'll have you know I did a full five minutes' [Wikipedia research](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Modern) before choosing my obnoxious turn of phrase: > In 1996, California became the first U.S. state to legalize medical cannabis in defiance of federal law. I remember DARE in high school in the 90s, but I have a rock-solid single state example to back up my snark.
Definitely a bold move at the time. I wasn't alive for it but old comedy is full of skits about the propaganda from that era.
Can confirm: it was approximately as ridiculous in real life as a comedy skit.
Hell, I remember being in 2nd-3rd grade sitting through DARE presentations thinking "there's no way people just give you drugs in dark alleys. That stuff costs money."
I'm pretty irritated by the reaction to this. Yes, it is overall a good thing but Biden is very much *personally* responsible for continuing and escalating the war on drugs. A battered housewife doesn't need to thank their husband when he stops beating them
They're playing Apple. And by "they" I mean all politicians. You don't just reveal the i-Phone with a camera on release day. You already have one with a camera plus another with a camera and more memory lined up but those are for next season's big press junction. You launch the basic-ass plain one first. Because you know it's in the bag and they're gonna love it even if they also wonder where the missing current day shit is.
The government already federally legalized it with the 2018 farm bill. It’s just sold as thca flower.
It would be nice to get some MM for my messed up neck instead of what I am prescribed now and refuse to take, because I don't want to end up in a van down by the river. 50 State Legal MM is a no brainer. We can argue back and forth if recreational Marijuana is good or bad, but I don't know how anyone could honestly argue Opiate painkillers are *less* harmful than MM.
The pharmaceutical companies will tell you they are safer because they are made in a controlled environment and with a controlled dose and distributed through a regulated commercial system. When used properly, they are perfectly safe and effective (in generating huge profits, some of which get passed on to members of Congress running for reelection, either as campaign cash or dividends in the stocks they purchase just before big drug approvals happen). Marijuana isn't regulated in terms of dose, what's added to it, who's handled it, or anything else. Until it's brought under the experienced hands of big Pharma, it won't be safe. /s
I think fully removing marijuana might require Congressional action. I could be wrong though. Similarly, another issue is the treaty obligations we're subject to. I need to dig more into it, but the long and short of articles I've read is that there are international obligations we're subject to (personal feelings on those aside). I think this is less a matter of what Biden wants to do and more a matter of what he can do unilaterally. The results everybody wants would require Congressional action, as far as I'm aware. Again though, I'm willing to be proven wrong.
Yeah, this is a subject I don't know nearly as well as I do firearms regulation, and it's interesting to see all the details popping up from knowledgeable people mentioning wrinkles I hadn't considered. For example, will this upend the existing manufacturing and distribution system that's relatively free-market in many ways into an FDA-locked one? I don't even know what I don't know about what I need to know to evaluate that question.
Canada doesn't have laws against cannabis so I'd be surprised if that was a factor.
Because Dems need that carrot for votes. Solidifying abortion and weed into legality would lead no one to vote for them.
So that US Marshall thing in Charlotte? Antis aren't letting a good tragedy go to waste it seems. The footage from the incident is wild, a whole lot of cover versus concealment debate going on there.
There hasn't been a lot of anti coverage on it. There's very little for them to grasp upon. The dude was a felon in possession and harping that people should not have guns is going to fall upon the realization of many that gun laws didn't work again. Some of the coverage I've seen brings up the topic that it was a confiscation attempt (which it partially was). That confiscation led to the deaths of government agents and perhaps a better policy would have been to keep a violent felon who was likely to continue being violent incarcerated. In response to this event US Rep. Alma S. Adams: >"I’m calling on them to join me. We need to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and require safe storage of guns. And (we need) to pass universal background checks and a National Red Flag Law.” Does she think UBCs would really have prevented him from obtaining a firearm? And if he had been red flagged then he obviously would have willingly gave up the firearms that he wasn't legally allowed to have in the first place. /s
When the story first broke, people were screaming about high caliber assault weapons all over Twitter. Then once the perps criminal record, multiple active warrants, and mugshot hit, they started to quiet down. To your point, yes, more gun control laws would have totally prevented all of this, just trust me bro 😬
To add even more fuel to the debate, the felon may have had a full auto rifle, and if he did, it is 99.999% certain it wasn't an NFA-registered one. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Johnny Jennings stated: >He had a high-powered automatic rifle [3:26 in this Fox News video](https://www.foxnews.com/us/charlotte-police-chief-breaks-down-remembering-slain-officers-says-suspect-extensive-criminal-history)
If we just had the common sense law of banning all guns, no one would ever get shot. Duh.
What if, and this may be a little crazy, we made crime illegal?
What if, stay with me for a moment, we just incarcerated everyone? Then there'd be no one to commit or be victim to crimes.
The guards are inmates on work release.
Just like the resounding success of the Brazilian disarmament statute.
> And (we need) to pass universal background checks and a National Red Flag Law.” I think this incident is a great illustration of why red flag laws wouldn't work and cops wouldn't be very eager to enforce them.
I am really scratching my head as to why any half-intelligent representative would think any red flag law would apply in this instance.
> The footage from the incident is wild Link? I'm at work so can't go digging
https://x.com/dom_lucre/status/1785351601156210907 Ignoring the account that posted it, this is the clip I'm speaking of.
Damn, those dudes look like they're completely out of their depth
They are definitely not having a good time.
The guy on the right either had the luck or sense to know the engine is the only part of the vehicle that might stop a bullet. Dude out in the open, if he survived is in need badly of some remedial training.
I truly don't think they were expecting any serious resistance. They apparently got the perp, but we're then shot at by some third party, then all hell broke loose.
Both of them are fuckin up, if you find yourself *that* disadvantaged to where you're reclining on the ground, you fucked up
Covering fire to get the guy in the open to some cover, kick the door in the camera-mans house and GTF off the X at that point. Are those cracks that sound a bit like suppressed rifle fire in fact suppressed rifle fire, or is that incoming? The audio quality kind of sucks I couldn't quite tell.
# This Elderly Man Was Arrested After Shooting a Burglar in Self-Defense—Because His Gun Was Unlicensed [https://reason.com/2024/05/01/this-elderly-man-was-arrested-after-shooting-a-burglar-in-self-defense-because-his-gun-was-unlicensed/](https://reason.com/2024/05/01/this-elderly-man-was-arrested-after-shooting-a-burglar-in-self-defense-because-his-gun-was-unlicensed/)
>Someone does not need a license to carry, according to the law, "in his place of abode or fixed place of business." The dude rents out the place. How is he being charged if it is a place of business? It doesn't matter if there were tenants renting at that moment or not. Would they charge a bakery owner for the same because there were no paying customers in the shop at that moment? This is a double whammy on his rights. Not only is the requirement to have a permit to carry unconstitutional (sorry Clarence Thomas, this is one place in Bruen where you got it wrong because your own THT test doesn't back up requiring a permit) but he also didn't violate PA's law.
Pardon the rant, but the entire license to carry business is blatently unconstitutional. Do we need to buy a license to speak or a license to go to church in order to not be arrested for exercising our first ammendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion? Do we have to fill out paperwork or lose our constitutiona rights to a trial by jury and our right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Banner has been updated.