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
Reciprocity is Currently Banned Under Federal Law (Very Important Please Read)
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="henschman" data-source="post: 1458008" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Cougar, do you have any info on this case? I would love to help the defense out in any way I can, pro bono. </p><p></p><p>The Federal Gun Free Schools Act, as reenacted, basically just added some language to the law that rehashed the argument that the feds made in <em>Lopez</em>... the same argument that the SC rejected. In <em>Lopez</em>, the feds argued that the gun involved had moved in interstate commerce, and that the aggregate effect of guns in school zones would effect interstate commerce because kids would not get good education, and would have lower paying jobs, etc... basically the feds made any argument they could to connect the possession of guns in a school zone with interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court didn't buy any of it. They said the connection to interstate commerce was too remote.</p><p></p><p>The new GFSZA just says that the gun must move in interstate commerce or must affect interstate commerce. Since this rationale for the law has already been rejected, it is widely believed that if the feds attempted to enforce this law and it's constitutionality was challenged, it would be ruled unconstitutional again. </p><p></p><p>I would like to do anything I can to help achieve that outcome.</p><p></p><p>It would defintely help me, since I am going with the Maine CCL so I can avoid the outrageous fingerprinting requirement here in Oklahoma. Actually the whole notion of having to ask permission to exercise a natural right is pretty outrageous to me, but now that I am a lawyer, I figure I should probably try to stay legal... even a misdemeanor "carrying a concealed weapon" charge could be trouble for me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1458008, member: 4235"] Cougar, do you have any info on this case? I would love to help the defense out in any way I can, pro bono. The Federal Gun Free Schools Act, as reenacted, basically just added some language to the law that rehashed the argument that the feds made in [I]Lopez[/I]... the same argument that the SC rejected. In [I]Lopez[/I], the feds argued that the gun involved had moved in interstate commerce, and that the aggregate effect of guns in school zones would effect interstate commerce because kids would not get good education, and would have lower paying jobs, etc... basically the feds made any argument they could to connect the possession of guns in a school zone with interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court didn't buy any of it. They said the connection to interstate commerce was too remote. The new GFSZA just says that the gun must move in interstate commerce or must affect interstate commerce. Since this rationale for the law has already been rejected, it is widely believed that if the feds attempted to enforce this law and it's constitutionality was challenged, it would be ruled unconstitutional again. I would like to do anything I can to help achieve that outcome. It would defintely help me, since I am going with the Maine CCL so I can avoid the outrageous fingerprinting requirement here in Oklahoma. Actually the whole notion of having to ask permission to exercise a natural right is pretty outrageous to me, but now that I am a lawyer, I figure I should probably try to stay legal... even a misdemeanor "carrying a concealed weapon" charge could be trouble for me. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Reciprocity is Currently Banned Under Federal Law (Very Important Please Read)
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom