With the federal government considering some firearms reform (this is not a thread to talk about that reform. In other words, keep the black helicoptering and gun seizure stories in another thread or in the absurd comments of the news story.) such as the AWB, national permits (H.R. 45, described in following news article), etc etc, my state rep has introduced a bill that hits back hard at gun control advocates.
Now we all know why it would matter to have "Made In *STATE*" printed on the firearm when it comes to federal laws. At least firearm owners (who more than likely know their Constitution pretty well) know: the interstate commerce clause. If a good or service (in this case a firearm) never leaves a state, because of the 10th amendment the federal government can't regulate it (or at least they have to invent another Constitutional loophole to regulate it). Hopefully other states will follow suit should it come to this. Obviously we don't want it to come to this because no one wants to be restricted to buying guns only made in their state.
I'm interested in what people think about the Constitutional aspect of this as well as the practical impact that such a law my have (would it increase or decrease the value of the labelled firearms?). But again, keep the tin foil in the kitchen and the "OBAMA TAKIN OUR GUNS" out of this thread.
LINK: http://www.thetimesherald.com/artic...s-interest-in-guns&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
Michigan State Rep. Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair Twp., is concerned about some legislation being considered in Washington.
H.R. 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, would require gun sales to be registered with the federal government, and a federally issued license would be required to own any handgun or semiautomatic weapon "that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device."
Pavlov has introduced H.B. 5232, the Michigan Firearms Freedom Act, which would have guns made in Michigan permanently labeled as such.
Now we all know why it would matter to have "Made In *STATE*" printed on the firearm when it comes to federal laws. At least firearm owners (who more than likely know their Constitution pretty well) know: the interstate commerce clause. If a good or service (in this case a firearm) never leaves a state, because of the 10th amendment the federal government can't regulate it (or at least they have to invent another Constitutional loophole to regulate it). Hopefully other states will follow suit should it come to this. Obviously we don't want it to come to this because no one wants to be restricted to buying guns only made in their state.
I'm interested in what people think about the Constitutional aspect of this as well as the practical impact that such a law my have (would it increase or decrease the value of the labelled firearms?). But again, keep the tin foil in the kitchen and the "OBAMA TAKIN OUR GUNS" out of this thread.
LINK: http://www.thetimesherald.com/artic...s-interest-in-guns&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
Last edited: