Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

U

USP45usp

Moderator
This is being set for the issue of discussion, debate, not attack.

Ron Paul, R-TX, voted against the act. What are your thoughts on this? I follow Ron and I agree with what he says/writes. On this act, I will be the first to say that I don't know what to think of it. It feels like a victory but the AP amendment is really giving me second thoughts (just knowing that Kennedy has been trying to ban rifle rounds as AP rounds).

So, what are your true thoughts on the bill. Win, Lose, Draw?

Wayne
 
Mixed win, with a couple of embedded losses.

Antipitas posted this Kopel article in the other thread on this subject:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1129830865.shtml

The bill is the culmination a decade of tort reform work, aimed at addressing the problem of abusive lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The bill is an excellent exercise of the congressional power over interstate commerce, for precisely the purpose for which Congress was originally granted that power: the billis necessary and proper to stop local governments from interfering with interstate commerce, including by attempting to use a verdict in a single state court to impose national firearms controls which have been rejected by Congress and by all state governments.

S. 397 is also a proper exercise of Congressional power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment, to prevent local governments, including local courts, from infringing the Second Amendment rights (and the parallel state constitutional rights in 44 states) which are guaranteed to all law-abiding Americans.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... a proper use of the commerce clause AND a stab at incorporation. How can I NOT have a soft spot for it? ;)
 
I don't quite understand what happened ... somehow I got the impression that we had the votes to pass a bill with no amendments, and that the NRA was pushing for a bill with no amendments ... but then we got amendments. What happened? Did Chucky Schumer threaten to have a hissy fit or something?

What if instead of one bill this was three different bills, one to stop the lawsuits, one regarding gun locks, and one about certain ammo ... if we would consider this to be one good bill and two bad ones ... having twice as many anti-gun (and unconstitutional) bills as pro-rkba bills doesn't sound like a winning season to me. It's like one step forward and two back.

And if there were amendments, then why not a pro-rkba amendment of some sort, maybe an amendment to recognize CCW permits in National Parks if they are issued by a State bordering said Park?
 
Originally posted by Hugh Damright:
It's like one step forward and two back.
Click to expand...


Funny logic...so if one morning you have three pieces of news:

1- you win $10M at the lottery
2- you get a parking ticket worth $25
3- you lost a quarter

you conclude that this was a bad morning: two bad news and one good??
To me this is exactly what happened with this bill.
 
Of the two amendments to the bill, here is what I am thinking:

Gun Lock with every gun: True enough that even if the gun (NIB) has the infernal internal lock, they usually have another gun lock with them. What makes one think that in the future, they will finally define what the gun lock should be, the specs, and it costing much money to include because now, it's law. I see the specs "redefined" and guns again going out of the price range of many people. It's the government folks, they got an inch, they WILL take the mile (and plus some).

The AP "study". I can do the study now, right here, for everyone:

1. Buy a Level I vest without trama plate.

2. Fire every type of ammo on the market.

3. Ban all ammo that went through the vest.

4. Study ended, concluded, and the mass amount of calibers are banned.

Look at what the dems are doing to help this "study". You have McCarthy(sp and I don't care, don't repects her) now calling 9mm's, AP ammo. Kennedy has called on a ban for most rifle cartriages, calling them AP ammo.

Come on folks, you know better. What do I have to do, smack you upside the head with an assault bass which was frozen to show what this could (and you know the government) lead to?

Oh well, I'm just paranoid. I guess when these things come to being, I'm sure that everyone will have forgotten the little things that may have helped get us to that point.

Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top