That’s not what the Constitution says. It’s posted above.
SpacemanSpiff:
It absolutely would. But since the gun has crossed state lines it’s under federal regs now, too.
Why?
What regs? Why not the “regs” of the states I cross while I’m crossing them?
The 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states. So what regs? According to the Constitution as incorporated by the SCOTUS, I can bear that rifle in any state in the union and it shall not be infringed, so what regs?
Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. Federal laws trump state’s every time. Right now fully automatic guns made after 1986 (I think) are straight up illegal and non transferable.
SpacemanSpiff:
WuWei:
SpacemanSpiff:
WuWei:
Snow96:
WuWei:
Montana rifles.
How does Montana Rifles guarantee that their product will never cross the montana state line?
How do they have to?
Like I said earlier. Unless there are strict records of sales, and very strict punishments for illegal sales, somebody WILL sell those things at a huge profit.
So what? Who does it hurt if I agree to pay $5k for a $2k rifle?
Nobody, as long as you don’t leave Montana with it.
Who does it hurt if I do?
You, if you get caught with it.
WuWei:
The right of the people peaceably to assemble
Huge stretch counting comerace as assembly.
Not hardly.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. Federal laws trump state’s every time. Right now fully automatic guns made after 1986 (I think) are straight up illegal and non transferable.
You just referenced a violation of the Constitution to justify a violation of the Constitution.
They are transferable. If I have a …
You, if you get caught with it.
Come on man.
Can you quote where in Constitution that gives goverment that authority?
Not hardly.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
Why did you stop on effects?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
Against unreasonable search and seizure.
Not being allowed to start a business where you want, how you want, when you want is not an unreasonable search, nor is it an unreasonable seizure.
Then it would state between foreign nations, states and the people.
Now you’re just making things up.
WuWei:
Not hardly.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
Why did you stop on effects?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
Against unreasonable search and seizure.
Not being allowed to start a business where you want, how you want, when you want is not an unreasonable search, nor is it an unreasonable seizure.
Forcing me to report, register or otherwise account for my personal purchases is a search involving a 3rd party and I am no longer secure.
Same exact logic used by the court to justify a “right to privacy” for the purposes of murdering babies.
Can you quote where in Constitution that gives goverment that authority?
10th amendment . . . Few posts after the one you quoted. Zoning and most business regulation not designated to the Federal Gov, and not prevented by the constitution. So reserved to the states and the people.
That’s interesting…now the expect Montana to prevent guns from leaving the state but when it comes to pot growers…those states that allow that don’t have to prevent pot from leaving the state.
Can we stay double standards. 
WuWei:
Not hardly.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
Why did you stop on effects?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
Against unreasonable search and seizure.
Not being allowed to start a business where you want, how you want, when you want is not an unreasonable search, nor is it an unreasonable seizure.
I have a right to be secure in my person, houses, papers and effects.
conan:
Can you quote where in Constitution that gives goverment that authority?
10th amendment . . . Few posts after the one you quoted. Zoning and most business regulation not designated to the Federal Gov, and not prevented by the constitution. So reserved to the states and the people.
Montana rifles. The state of Montana is in on it.
conan:
Can you quote where in Constitution that gives goverment that authority?
10th amendment . . . Few posts after the one you quoted. Zoning and most business regulation not designated to the Federal Gov, and not prevented by the constitution. So reserved to the states and the people.
What is the purpose of zoning?
I have a right to be secure in my person, houses, papers and effects.
Against unreasonable search and seizure. You are leaving that part off.
Yes. There is FAR too much regulation limiting our ability to engage in private activity. If I don’t pose a threat to others, i.e. am I making fertilizer in my garage that could explode and kill my neighbors or damage the water supply… there should be NO regulations on your activity. To me, the line is harming others. No harm, no regulations. JMO of course and I know that will never fly because people seem to want the nanny state.
WuWei:
I have a right to be secure in my person, houses, papers and effects.
Against unreasonable search and seizure. You are leaving that part off.
It is a search.
You do understand there are places that I cannot turn my garage into a small workshop.
Now I live in unincorporated area precisely their isn’t any restrictions.
SpacemanSpiff:
Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. Federal laws trump state’s every time. Right now fully automatic guns made after 1986 (I think) are straight up illegal and non transferable.
You just referenced a violation of the Constitution to justify a violation of the Constitution.
They are transferable. If I have a …
If the full auto gun is lawfully owned (requiring a Class III license), and made before May 19, 1986 then it can be legally transferred.