My guess is if the OK law passes you won't see any arrests or convictions. I just don't see a TPD officer going up to two BATF agents and placing them under arrest at Dongs. That would get ugly, quick.
ATF exposes dealers to pressure and risks to satisfy Obamas executive action
- Thread starter OKC03Cobra
- Start Date
My guess is if the OK law passes you won't see any arrests or convictions. I just don't see a TPD officer going up to two BATF agents and placing them under arrest at Dongs. That would get ugly, quick.
I've been thinking about this. 
What if the several states that are working on their "2A preservation" laws (like OK SB548) actually get them passed and then banded together and did some sort of reciprocity agreement with each other? You could sell to anyone within those states. Or even better yet use the existing reciprocity agreements already in place for CCW? I mean for all intents and purposes CCW holders have already been checked out and are clear right? Could be useful for flying the finger at the .gov at the very least.
What if the several states that are working on their "2A preservation" laws (like OK SB548) actually get them passed and then banded together and did some sort of reciprocity agreement with each other? You could sell to anyone within those states. Or even better yet use the existing reciprocity agreements already in place for CCW? I mean for all intents and purposes CCW holders have already been checked out and are clear right? Could be useful for flying the finger at the .gov at the very least.
That would be interstate commerce, the regulation of which is clearly defined in the Constitution as a power held by the Congress.
this^^ i was in my local pawn shop yesterday. the two owners take turns working saturdays. i overheard them talking on the phone about going from $25 to 50 on receiving of guns. patrick is justified to ask more if the time and paperwork double or triple IMO
Patrick, you might have to explain it one more time. I laughed.
As opposed to the 2nd Amendment, which is clearly defined as a right of the people that shall not be infringed upon by the same Congress? The interstate commerce clause has long been used by the feds to gain control over almost everything. It's time we start taking some back and I can't think of a better way than for several states to send a "collective" message.
Lmao..
Seems it wasn't clearly defined enough. It was originally intended to keep trade free among the states and prevent them from putting tariffs on interstate trade. But now the federal government has turned it into a tool to regulate damn near everything and charge their own "tariffs" on that trade.
I didn't say that the Commerce Clause was well-defined (although it really was until the New Deal and FDR's courts stretched it to the point it resembled the elastic in Rosie O'Donnell's drawers), just that the power to regulate interstate commerce is a power that is clearly granted to the Congress.
How does requiring that interstate transfers go through an FFL infringe on your right to keep and bear arms?
Now, don't get me wrong, I think NFA '34, GCA '68, the Brady Act, and the "It's a Crime, Bill" '94 are all garbage and need to be eradicated from the books (hell, I think the 2nd Amendment means I, as a US Citizen in good standing, should be able to walk into Los Alamos National Labs, plunk down my cash, and walk out with a tactical nuke), but states cannot exercise powers that are explicitly granted to the Federal government. That's the way our Founding Fathers set up the system (after some significant trial and error), and it's worked pretty damned well for over 200 years.
Similar threads
