Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
OK2A Releases July 25, 2013 ATF Letter Regarding Oklahoma Carry Permits and Fed GFSZA
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cougar" data-source="post: 2392261" data-attributes="member: 3179"><p>Mons meg, you ask what logic SCOTUS could use to uphold the new law. I direct you to the 2005 case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_vs_Dorsey_gfsza95.pdf" target="_blank">United States v Dorsey</a>, where a federal appellate court, after a fairly in depth review, ruled the minor changes made to the law were indeed sufficient to alleviate the concerns of the Lopez decision, and affirmed Dorsey's conviction. A liberal leaning SCOTUS could easily use the same logic the court used in the Dorsey case. If you have not already done so, read up on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v_Filburn" target="_blank">Wickard_v_Filburn</a> an old case where SCOTUS ruled a person growing and consuming wheat entirely on their own property was effecting interstate commerce by not entering in interstate commerce. I would also like to point out that there is no federal law against a felon possessing a gun, there is a federal law against a felon possessing a gun effecting interstate commerce (sound familiar)? I read a federal case a few days ago, where a felon was convicted of possessing a firearm, and he argued he was not effecting interestate commerce because the gun had been in his family for 30+ years and had never left the state during that time. The court ruled it did not matter, and convicted him. A felon possessing a gun in their home does not effect interstate commerce any more than an otherwise law-abiding person possessing a gun within 1000 feet of a school. If SCOTUS were to strike Fed GFSZA again, they would also have to strike the felon-in-possession law, and countless (if not all) other federal criminal statutes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cougar, post: 2392261, member: 3179"] Mons meg, you ask what logic SCOTUS could use to uphold the new law. I direct you to the 2005 case of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_vs_Dorsey_gfsza95.pdf"]United States v Dorsey[/URL], where a federal appellate court, after a fairly in depth review, ruled the minor changes made to the law were indeed sufficient to alleviate the concerns of the Lopez decision, and affirmed Dorsey's conviction. A liberal leaning SCOTUS could easily use the same logic the court used in the Dorsey case. If you have not already done so, read up on [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v_Filburn"]Wickard_v_Filburn[/URL] an old case where SCOTUS ruled a person growing and consuming wheat entirely on their own property was effecting interstate commerce by not entering in interstate commerce. I would also like to point out that there is no federal law against a felon possessing a gun, there is a federal law against a felon possessing a gun effecting interstate commerce (sound familiar)? I read a federal case a few days ago, where a felon was convicted of possessing a firearm, and he argued he was not effecting interestate commerce because the gun had been in his family for 30+ years and had never left the state during that time. The court ruled it did not matter, and convicted him. A felon possessing a gun in their home does not effect interstate commerce any more than an otherwise law-abiding person possessing a gun within 1000 feet of a school. If SCOTUS were to strike Fed GFSZA again, they would also have to strike the felon-in-possession law, and countless (if not all) other federal criminal statutes. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
OK2A Releases July 25, 2013 ATF Letter Regarding Oklahoma Carry Permits and Fed GFSZA
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom