Senate OKs bill to exempt firearms from federal regulation

[RecycleMichael]

Nah, I don't feel like arguing with delusinal, paranoid dipshits today. 

Does that mean we are not having lunch together?

[cynical]

Pardon me if this has been discussed before. 

What is precisely stupid about this bill is that it does exactly nothing.   The state lacks the power to determine or preempt federal jurisdiction.  The entire question boils down to 2 steps:

1.  Does the U.S. Constitution (usually the Commerce Clause) give the federal government jurisdiction?
2.  Has Congress chosen to exercise that power?

If the answer to both questions is yes, the Supremacy Clause takes care of the rest.  If the answer to either is no, then the federal government lacks power, regardless of whether the state has attempted to assert jurisdiction.  Stated another way: the states already have plenary police powers and don't need to legislate to get the courts to recognize that.  The federal government was delegated certain powers by the states when they ratified the constitution and amendments.  The supremacy clause says that if the federal government lawfully asserts power and the state lawfully asserts power over the same subject matter, federal power supersedes state power.  But if the constitution doesn't give the federal government power, it doesn't give the federal government power.  State legislation is irrelevant there.

Most wide-reaching federal legislation is enacted pursuant to the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce.  The courts have almost always found that anything that affects interstate commerce, even if it itself is not interstate, falls within the power to regulate and protect interstate commerce.  Therefore the Tulsa-Sapulpa Union Railway is covered by the Federal Employer's Liability Act even though its lines are exclusively intra-state.  It carries things that are in interstate commerce.  Similarly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to a mom-and-pop diner in Bokoshe, Oklahoma, because it both serves food that is in commerce and serves customers who might be in commerce.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has found some limits to Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause.  It struck down federal legislation attempting to regulate the presence of firearms on school property (the State of Oklahoma also bans this) as not having a sufficient connection to interstate commerce and limited the reach of the Water Quality Act to waters that can be shown to flow into rivers that are used for interstate commerce.  In neither case was state legislation required to preempt federal jurisdiction.  If federal jurisdiction is there, it cannot be preempted. If federal jurisdiction is not there, it doesn't have to be preempted. 

Occasionally federal legislation will leave some policy decisions to be made on a state-by-state basis.  The power to enact Right-to-Work laws is found in the National Labor Relations Act.  The recent health care reform legislation reserved some decisions to the states, though in the smoke surround the "death panel" arguments, etc., I have forgotten what those decisions pertained to.

If the Oklahoma legislature cared about these sorts of things they would stop spending time on pure grandstanding and get to work. 

[nathanm]

The only reason for registrations and permits/licenses is a preludes to confiscations and nothing more,which have happened before in this country. They do not do anything to prevent crime nor do they really do anything to solve crime except for maybe a few crimes if any seeing how criminals are not going to register their firearms,nor are criminals going to go through legal channels to buy weapons if they do not have to. Severely restricting a constitutional right is almost close to confiscation.  Luckily Oklahoma is not New York or some other state that shits on the 2nd amendment,so a rapper would not get arrested for possessing a firearm.

I agree completely with your second sentence. It's too bad the first one is full of batshitinsane paranoia. Nobody's coming for your guns, despite what GOA has been claiming for god only knows how long. The rest of us would just like to see the adjudicated insane and people who have proven themselves felons wielding a gun in the commission of their crimes to not have them.

Even in the most liberal of states, gun ownership is perfectly legal. Have you seen the number of literal machine guns they've got out in California?

[Conan71]

Even in the most liberal of states, gun ownership is perfectly legal. Have you seen the number of literal machine guns they've got out in California?

"Military look-alike firearms that are not listed on the DOJ roster of prohibited firearms, known as "off list lowers", are legal to own and possess, as long as state laws concerning configuration are followed. It is illegal to import, sell, give, trade, or lend a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition, except for fixed tubular magazines for lever-action rifles and .22 caliber rifles; however, the possession of such magazines is legal. It is illegal to possess an automatic firearm or a short-barreled shotgun or rifle without permission from the Department of Justice; such permission is generally not granted.[36]"

I'm not aware of machine guns being easy to get in California.  They even have a restriction on only being able to have 10 round mags in semi-automatic rifles, and I believe to ensure this, it's a fixed magazine.  As I recall a gun like an AR-15 has a 49 state version and a California version which is the restricted magazine.

[nathanm]

I'm not aware of machine guns being easy to get in California.  They even have a restriction on only being able to have 10 round mags in semi-automatic rifles, and I believe to ensure this, it's a fixed magazine.  As I recall a gun like an AR-15 has a 49 state version and a California version which is the restricted magazine.

You're right, they aren't easy to get in California, yet there are plenty of people licensed to own them there. That's my point.

[Conan71]

You're right, they aren't easy to get in California, yet there are plenty of people licensed to own them there. That's my point.

What stats are you citing for this?  Not necessarily doubting your word, but it sounds really counter-intuitive to me.

[nathanm]

What stats are you citing for this?  Not necessarily doubting your word, but it sounds really counter-intuitive to me.

I have met people I know to be citizens of California who claim to legally own AR-15s and guns regulated under the NFA as destructive devices. Since approval of local law enforcement is required under federal law for certain classes of weapons, those living in the coastal cities have a harder time getting their hands on them, but out in the desert nobody gives a smile.

It is an expensive hobby, thanks to the onerous fees, but it's not as if they make it impossible to own any particular sort of gun. Hell, even fully automatic weapons can be legally owned with the proper licenses from the federal and state governments.

[Conan71]

I have met people I know to be citizens of California who claim to legally own AR-15s and guns regulated under the NFA as destructive devices. Since approval of local law enforcement is required under federal law for certain classes of weapons, those living in the coastal cities have a harder time getting their hands on them, but out in the desert nobody gives a smile.

It is an expensive hobby, thanks to the onerous fees, but it's not as if they make it impossible to own any particular sort of gun. Hell, even fully automatic weapons can be legally owned with the proper licenses from the federal and state governments.

Ah, anecdotal evidence.  It's quite legal to own an AR-15 in California, you make no distinction between semi and fully-automatic.  The "California model" is the one I referred to earlier with the fixed 10 round mag.

Here's some great insomnia cure material:

http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm

[heironymouspasparagus]

There is a background check (Federal) to own a machine gun.  Has been since the 1930's.  Plus a tax/fee ($200 last I knew for sure).  Gun Control Act of 1968 ended mail order guns (thanks to Ted Kennedy - the MOST legitimate reason to dislike him.)

No firing functional tanks, bazookas or flame throwers allowed.  Shame.  I want a Sherman tank.

And 48 states have some form of concealed carry in the state.  Wonderful!!!  We need to keep pressure on the other two!!

And who ISN"T a member of the NRA??  Well, that's too many!
Lifetime Membership, preferably.

[Conan71]

There is a background check (Federal) to own a machine gun.  Has been since the 1930's.  Plus a tax/fee ($200 last I knew for sure).  Gun Control Act of 1968 ended mail order guns (thanks to Ted Kennedy - the MOST legitimate reason to dislike him.)

No firing functional tanks, bazookas or flame throwers allowed.  Shame.  I want a Sherman tank.

And 48 states have some form of concealed carry in the state.  Wonderful!!!  We need to keep pressure on the other two!!
And who ISN"T a member of the NRA??  Well, that's too many!

Lifetime Membership, preferably.

Could you blame Teddy?  Two brothers killed by gunfire (or was Joe Jr shot down?)  IIRC, Lee Oswald's rifle was obtained via mail order.

Technically, you can still by via mail but it's got to ship to a local FFL. 

[nathanm]

Technically, you can still by via mail but it's got to ship to a local FFL. 

Doesn't everybody know an FFL? 

[we vs us]

Considering the fact liberal states tend to be very anti-2nd amendment and have lots of anti-2nd amendment laws it is a lie to say that its all water cooler talk. Waiting periods, licenses/permits,registrations and limits are things that liberal politicians in liberal states came up with.

Some of these "liberal states" have good reason to regulate guns.  Most of the states you're thinking of are highly urbanized and have crime ecosystems that are far more developed and lethal than Oklahoma's.  Look, regardless of where we all live, OK's a rural state, and guns here serve closer to the role that they used to serve on the frontier:  hunting, and to protect the homestead when the law is too far away to provide protection.  In more urbanized states it's different.  Every gun -- legally owned or not -- represents much more of a danger to its community, whether its owner intends it or not. 

[nathanm]

Agreed.

This is why some things ought to be regulated on a state-by-state basis. Conditions are different in different places.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I don't blame Teddy for his feelings about it.

What I blame is his ignorance about what a possible solution might be.  Remember how every state that has passed a concealed carry has had a major drop in crime?  And early on in that process it was absolutely obvious that it was in direct contrast to the states that didn't have it.

I don't really have too much trouble with some of the gun laws we have in place today...just many of them.  Take it one step further, I think we should require firearms training for everyone in the country.  I think every household should be required to have the training, skill and equipment for self defense.  AK-47's are a good choice, but an M-16 would suffice.

Disclosure item;  there is NO ONE in this country that is more conservative on this topic that I.  The Law of the Land is the Supreme Law for this country as far as I am concerned, and the 2nd Amendment has equal weight and force to any of them and was considered SO important that it was placed second in the list; I believe as direct support to 1st.

Anyone think there would be "drive-by's" if the whole neighborhood was ready to respond in kind??

But that requirement would be an intrusion in a person's rights and liberty in the other direction from where it is now.

Maybe there is a middle ground?

[Nik]

Remember how every state that has passed a concealed carry has had a major drop in crime?

I always thought the evidence was inconclusive?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_the_Efficacy_of_Concealed_Carry