If it is the will of Florida...
and it is supported by the Constitution anyhow.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

If it is the will of Florida...
and it is supported by the Constitution anyhow.

That's subject to interpretation, I forsee a SCOTUS battle on this, especially if they try and sell guns out of state. Furthermore if laws in Florida begin to impact other states it could get nasty. Florida laws end at the border.

For example suppose a particular gun is illegal in 49 states but legal in Florida. Then these guns start showing up in other states. How do you think the other states will react? About as well as the Mexican Government is when they see their police officiers murdered by weapons totally illegal in Mexico, but sold without any conscience by gun dealers in the USA.

Basically Florida is going to take a s*** in someone's backyard. Lets await the response.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

That's subject to interpretation, I forsee a SCOTUS battle on this, especially if they try and sell guns out of state. Furthermore if laws in Florida begin to impact other states it could get nasty. Florida laws end at the border.

For example suppose a particular gun is illegal in 49 states but legal in Florida. Then these guns start showing up in other states. How do you think the other states will react? About as well as the Mexican Government is when they see their police officiers murdered by weapons totally illegal in Mexico, but sold without any conscience by gun dealers in the USA.

The US Govt has no right, as intended by the FF, to be involved in any product that isn't in Interstate commerce. If it survived a review by SCOTUS, there would be(i'm sure) a Fed. Law banning any noncompliant weopan outside the State of Manufacture.
The Gov't under the Articles of Confederation (& the CS Govt) failed(or,would have in the case of the CSA) because of an inability to levy taxes. The Fed. Govt was created to provide a united defence, currency foriegn policy, & a few things that affectthing at a national level, such as Interstate trade. It wasn't supposed to be funding all sorts of local pork barell projects that have no national benifits.

Originally Posted by George

The US Govt has no right, as intended by the FF, to be involved in any product that isn't in Interstate commerce. If it survived a review by SCOTUS, there would be(i'm sure) a Fed. Law banning any noncompliant weopan outside the State of Manufacture.
The Gov't under the Articles of Confederation (& the CS Govt) failed(or,would have in the case of the CSA) because of an inability to levy taxes. The Fed. Govt was created to provide a united defence, currency foriegn policy, & a few things that affectthing at a national level, such as Interstate trade. It wasn't supposed to be funding all sorts of local pork barell projects that have no national benifits.

Again that's subject to a Supreme Court Review, and I am not sure it would survive. The states are making a gamble. The "Commerce Clause" in Article 1 Section 8 for example clearily states that only Congress can negiociate interstate trade. No Gun manufacturer in his right mind would ever set up shop in Florida if he couldn't sell their wares throughout the country. Even if it is going to a state that does allow this type of firearm (like Montana), the very second it crossed the border it would be in violation of US Federal law. This is why I said people are really not thinking this one clearly. This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment it has everything to do with the 10th Amendment.

And from a common sense POV do we really want a system where unscrupulous business actions involving weapons (of all things) are made easier for the parties involved, without Federal oversight? Even if its legal doesn't mean its smart or right.

The AOC and the Confederacy failed due to issues deeper than just taxes, specifically it was a lack of central control that was the issue in both cases. What you had instead was states squabbling amongst themselves. Virginia and Massachusetts in the mid-1780s for example nearly went to war with each other as their were disputing the annexation of new territory because there was no central authority. As did NY and NJ over several islands in the Hudson river. What is essentially being proposed is replacing a single central authoritative government in Washington with 50 smaller ones that will significantly less organized and funded.
In almost any example you care to mention decentralization (Germany States, Greek City-States) has caused far more problems that it solved. This is a really BAD idea.

As for a Federal Law banning non-compliant weapons. First, I thought the gun-advocates were against new guns laws. Second, the NRA was almost certainly oppose it. Third it wouldn't stop non-compliant weapons from crossing into the border anyway, pissing off the States that do NOT want this in their communities.

The Federal government was never intended to have sway over such matters. Its a shame the Confederacy was defeated, it opened the door to the Fed's assuming too much.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

The Federal government was never intended to have sway over such matters. Its a shame the Confederacy was defeated, it opened the door to the Fed's assuming too much.

I doubt John Adams or the other Federalists would have agreed with that, They were pro-Federal Government. And since the founding fathers themselves didn't agree on this issue all we can do is look at devolpments that have happened AFTER 1789 to see which one of them was right.

IMHO, The Civil War was pretty darn good illustration of the weaknesses of a decentralized United States. The moment the states thought they didnt need a Fed telling them what to do, all hell broke loose.

Ah, awesome to hear it!!!

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

The South shall rise again

And we'll beat'em back down again.

Decentralization became a conflict issue when it threatened the preseveration of the Union. That was the original reason as to why the North fought against the South, though the South's attack on Fort Sumter was where the first shots were fired.
If Florida wants to be a part of the United States (i.e. paying US taxes) but have laws that reflect its own will, it should have that right, especially since membership in the Union was supposed to be voluntary.
As for the possible sale of weapons illegal to other states... the other states will simply have to put harsh penalties on those caught with it.
Also I don't think the movement of these weapons in a crate to Montana would be in violation of anything. After all, you can check in your rifle at the airport, fly over a dozen states where it would be illegal, and still legally check it out on the other end as long as it was legal there as well.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Decentralization became a conflict issue when it threatened the preseveration of the Union. That was the original reason as to why the North fought against the South, though the South's attack on Fort Sumter was where the first shots were fired.
If Florida wants to be a part of the United States (i.e. paying US taxes) but have laws that reflect its own will, it should have that right, especially since membership in the Union was supposed to be voluntary.
As for the possible sale of weapons illegal to other states... the other states will simply have to put harsh penalties on those caught with it.
Also I don't think the movement of these weapons in a crate to Montana would be in violation of anything. After all, you can check in your rifle at the airport, fly over a dozen states where it would be illegal, and still legally check it out on the other end as long as it was legal there as well.

Each State is a Sovereign entity and the federal government is supposed to recognize that. After the Civil War the Federal Government grew in power and stated that while it is voluntary to enter the Union it is illegal to leave it..... makes no sense does it....

The Interstate Commerce Clause was designed for a very limited scope of power. The FED has abused it to the point that if you grow your own corn and eat it the FED will still demand that they can control it becuase of the fact that it can be sold as a interstate product when you clearly grow it for your own personal use.

This is an issue of State's Rights and a number of them have been telling the FED to back off.

These issues aren't happening because of some small minority. These are the views of the majority of these states and we feel that some asshat in DC has no right to tell use in Miami how to run our lives.

It's like me in Miami telling people how to run their lives in Berlin,Germany. They know what works there.... not me.

Redneck & 5.56 pretty well covered the Commerce Clause situation. If I had a gun manufacturing facility in Fla I'd be making both types of guns, Fed compliant & Fla only, assuming that the bill worked & passed SCOTUS.The ability of States to leave was one of the checks & balances built in by the FF. People tend to forget the the New England States held a secession Convention during a time of War with a foriegn power, England(during the War of 1812). The C.W. erased the Sates ability to seceede, plus the State Militia System that gave military power to the States was abolished. 2 more checks on Federal power gone.