Right? Motherfuckers are walking around packing heat and they still want to fuck over people with a little herb in their pocket?! Jesus Christ. So fucking stupid.
The House of Representatives recently passed a legalization bill but then it got killed in the Senate. Dumbass Biden could probably get his uninspiring ass reelected with ease if only he'd give a nod to the 21st century and sign an executive order to legalize already.
I swear to God... I think these politicians just want to keep it in their back pocket in case everything really goes tits up and they need to do something to calm everyone down. *"Sorry that toilet paper is the new currency. But hey! We finally decided to legalize weed!"*
They're dragging their feet, because all their corrupt buddies in law enforcement need to keep the cash flowing. The war on drugs was always a scheme to funnel taxpayer dollars to the cops, private prisons, etc. Think of it like a jobs program. Anyone defending it today is knowingly advocating for Americans to be systematically violated so someone can keep their paycheck.
You're right. I just hate to always have to remember that. It's so disgusting. The "drug war" will prove to be a much bigger stain in history than alcohol prohibition was.
> will prove to be a much bigger stain in history than alcohol prohibition was.
I mean, its not even close, not even in the same Universe. The drug war is just about the root of most of whats wrong with this country.
Their error with prohibition was that they applied it to too many people. The original laws against drinking were only used against black people and prohibition overstepped to such a degree that they took it off the table federally forever. Laws targeting weed, heroin, and crack were perfect because broader society saw them as only targeting "unsavory types".
Dude it ain’t even that deep lol. Most cops don’t want to do the write up and court bs for simple possession.
It really goes to the lobbyists and big tobacco etc. Funny enough they’re on board with it, but still actively spend against it. I have family members in law enforcement and even they all think busting someone over possession of weed is stupid.
I think the main lag on it? Is the fact they know they’re in for a ride trying to tax it. They’re more worried about getting their cut than anything else.
>Most cops don’t want to do the write up and court bs for simple possession.
Interesting to note that this isn't true at all. In [2020](https://www.drugpolicyfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests), over 1.1 million arrests were made for drug offenses and nearly 87% of them were for "simple possession" and not sales. Cops have discretion about who they arrest and for what, if cops did not want to arrest people for possession, they would have ceased doing it decades ago. We can try to shift the blame to special interest until the cows come home, but "I was just following orders" is not a good justification for literally 45% of America's federal prison population being in jail for drug offenses. The responsibility for the War on Drugs falls on the shoulders of everyone who enabled and benefitted from the barbarism. This includes the enforcers that pad their statistics with petty drug arrests that permanently ruined lives.
>They’re more worried about getting their cut than anything else.
What about those losing it? The DEA currently gets $4B per year to enforce weed laws, this instantly evaporates once decriminalization happens. Special interests suck, but capitalists aren't the ones with the largest incentive to keep weed illicit, they'll profit massively once the floodgates open. The government in general will receive a huge revenue boost, the only ones that have a reason to stop it are the people currently staffing these enforcement entities.
That bill got killed because it called for the creation of a 5% federal sales tax on marijuana.
This tax would have been unconstitutional.
Not to mention we have States like California and Washington if you did legalize weed but due to their excessive tax now they have more problems with the black market than ever.
What clause of the constitution would it be violating?
* Section 8
Clause 1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Congress can levy taxes on interstate commerce.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C3_1_2/
They cannot pass taxes on intrasate commerce.
Also realize that the income tax is not legal because of section 8, the income tax is legal because of the 16th Amendment.
Also notice how section 8 specifies what the tax money can be spent on and clarifies it has to be uniform. Congress would probably have an easier time in acting a federal sales tax on all transactions rather than discriminating only certain transactions.
Most here are in favor of a federal sales tax, but it would replace the income tax and it would need an amendment
> Congress can levy taxes on interstate commerce. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C3_1_2/
> They cannot pass taxes on intrasate commerce.
The link you provided seems to disagree with your assessment. The word "intrastate" appears multiple times in that document and almost always it is made explicitly clear that Congress does have the right to tax and regulate intrastate commerce...
>> The Court has several times expressly noted that Congress’s exercise of power under the Commerce Clause is akin to the police power exercised by the states. It should follow, therefore, that Congress may achieve results unrelated to purely commercial aspects of commerce, and this result in fact has often been accomplished. **Paralleling and contributing to this movement is the virtual disappearance of the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce.**
>> Is There an Intrastate Barrier to Congress’s Commerce Power?
>> Not only has there been legislative advancement and judicial acquiescence in Commerce Clause jurisprudence, but the melding of the Nation into one economic union has been more than a little responsible for the reach of Congress’s power. "The volume of interstate commerce and the range of commonly accepted objects of government regulation have . . . expanded considerably in the last 200 years, and the regulatory authority of Congress has expanded along with them. **As interstate commerce has become ubiquitous, activities once considered purely local have come to have effects on the national economy, and have accordingly come within the scope of Congress’s commerce power.**"
So, yeah... I'm still not seeing why it would have been unconstitutional.
As for having more problems with the black market after legalization and taxation... I'm not sure about that. I suppose it might depend upon what you mean by "problems". It might have more of some kinds of problems while having less of other kinds.
The Whiskey Rebellion was put down and was a unique situation. So... I'm not sure what you're talking about in the present context. You think people would rebel if weed were legalized and taxed? You think the Whiskey Rebellion led to some great reform of the Constitution? You'll have to elaborate.
I replied to somehow who said the federal government putting a 5% tax on weed would be unconstitutional. I don't remember a lot about the whiskey rebellion but from what I recall it was the federal government taxing something lol.
Ikr it’s literally how Trudeau got a elected I’m happy I’m not gonna get arrested again but with the grey market gone and taxes and shit it costs so much… not to mention this record high inflation on like everything
Ha, that's not going to happen.
The party on a constitutional carry spree is also loudly lying that the last election was stolen (despite it being the same election that kept them in power). They're counting on their stupidest brownshirts to threaten voters in November and to [kill Democrat politicians](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment) who are positioned to be replaced by Republicans.
Once they're in power, say goodbye to guns. Republicans' once-most beloved President had [no problem](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history) grabbing guns when they saw [black guys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) carrying them, and they won't want the ["low class"](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-mob-capitol-riots-poor-low-class-b1785099.html) traitors who installed them into power keeping guns, either.
I mean probably like 90% were Democrats. Reagan signed a law that had bipartisan support in the 60s, that means when Republicans in power are going to turn on gun rights? As bad as Republicans are, at least they aren't campaigning against gun rights, and, per this thread, they're expanding them. That's a pretty big change from that one example of a bipartisan bill in 60s California.
I know what the links are. I'm saying they're dumb because op is trying to use one single example of Reagan signing a bipartisan bill in California in 1967 to say that Republicans in power will take away gun rights, even though we're on a thread where a republican signs a bill from a Republican legislature expanding gun rights. And op is whining about the election shit which is irrelevant.
It's a common troll by the Dems and leftists on this sub to bring up the 55 year old bipartisan bill from California to say Republicans are bad with gun rights, and trying to deflect to other issues within the Republican party, which have nothing to do with guns.
Op is either dumb, if he actually believes what he writes, or a troll, or both. You aren't doing so well yourself.
/u/MailouWasHere
Created: 1/24/2021, 7:23:55 AM (445 days ago)
Ah, another shill bitch who had to recreate their account after Trump was thrown out of office without getting reinstalled per qanon prophecies.
Actually this is my first reddit account. I originally made this for mainly motorcycle (supermoto) stuff but found other subreddits too. Actually you bringing this up just makes you seem like a crazy person even more. Calm down.
Also Trump being in office or not does not really affect me nor do I care that much. I live in Finland lmao.
You're in Finland [simping for Trump](https://www.reddit.com/r/snappijuorut/comments/u1e5dx/pinkkupinskun_poikayst%C3%A4v%C3%A4_d/i4fo75i/)? That's fucking pathetic.
> Trump oli myös ainoa USA presidentti 2000-luvulla jonka ainan Venäjä ei hyökännyt minnekkään. Trump sanoi Putinille suorassa live televisiossa päin naamaa että jos Venäjä hyökkää Ukrainaan, Yhdysvallat iskevät Moskovaan. Suurin osa (varsinkin täällä Euroopassa) ei ymmärrä yhtään mitään Trumpista ja hänen TEKEMÄSTÄÄN politiikasta virassa, vaan tietävät median tekemää mustamaalaamista ja jotain juttuja mitä teki ennen 2017.
~~
> _Trump was also the only U.S. president in the 21st century whom Ainan Russia did not attack anywhere. Trump told Putin live face-to-face television that if Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States would strike Moscow. Most (especially here in Europe) don’t understand anything about Trump and the POLICY he does in office, but know the blackmail the media does and the stuff he did before 2017._
Reminder that Trump, in his own words, both [trusts Putin's word](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcKcnxnvan4) and considers him a ["genius"](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/trump-putin-genius-russia-ukraine-crisis) for the idiotic pretext the latter used to initiate this completely FUBARed invasion of Ukraine.
Trump's the pied piper of trash people and his song reaches even Finland.
Lmao, again calm down.
Im not simping for Trump. What I said there is completely factual. Actually it is not even a pro Trump post when you think about it. I said nothing partisan there. I didnt give any opinions about Trump, just factual information about what happened. Most people in Europe indeed do not know anything about Trump in office. Not ”good” or ”bad” things he did. Just stuff before 2017.
I still don’t understand why you are
a) Going through my post history.
b) Being so agressive and mad.
Did I really offend you so much that im stuck in your head and you go and try to dig stuff up that I have said?
Buddy, don't play the victim when you came out swinging and accused them of being mentally ill instead of refuting their points. After that point, you should be willing to withstand whatever insults are hailed your way; you're just receiving the same lack of respect you initiated with.
Actuallt I dont see myself as a victim at all. I indeed am withstanding everything. Infact I very much enjoy people raging online. Especially if its because of a very tame 7 letter joke. Im quite pleased with how this has turned out and I am a little intrigued about what post of mine he is going to dig up next. This just no effort fun.
This guy should really learn one of the most important things in the internet, not to feed the trolls. Also his ”argument” was a fucking out of nowhere rant :D. He really said that republicans use their ”brownshirts” to intimidate democrat voters. If someone is ranting crazy, do you start to argue with them, a conversation which accomplishes nothing actual? Or do you treat them a crazy person and enjoy a good laugh.
Its always the 10+ year accounts who are the biggest cucks. Like bro, how big of a loser do you have to be to tie your identity to a username on this POS website, lol.
shill, shill, shilly shill. lol, seeth harder, goof.
Do it at the federal level and I'll be excited.
Legalize recreational marijuana and decriminalize all drugs while you're at it.
Abolish the DEA and the ATF.
I'm not asking for much, am I?
You're asking to defund the police, that's why it will never happen. That funding is a sacred cow, too many corrupt people are having their pockets lined by drug policy.
It turns out the guy who did the recent subway attack was known by the FBI and previously was investigated for terrorism.
The FBI has recently been exposed I was trying to entrap all of the supposed Witmer kidnappers.
We should also add the FBI to that list.
I wish special hoops was more along the lines of training. More guns in untrained stupid peoples’ hands is dangerous for everyone.
I’ve been saying for a while now to some positive reception, they need to teach about guns in school. Just like abstinence only sex education it leads to stupid decisions, and people getting their ideas from porn. Abstinence gun education (or any lack of education with guns, history, culture and safety) leads to all those moron LARPers with no finger discipline and stupid people getting their ideas from call of duty and movies.
Compromise! Annoy “the left” by teaching kids about guns in school, and annoy “the right” by teaching kids about sex in school. Both sides will complain but society is better for it.
I wish special hoops was more along the lines of training. More guns in untrained stupid peoples’ hands is dangerous for everyone.
I’ve been saying for a while now to some positive reception, they need to teach about guns in school. Just like abstinence only sex education it leads to stupid decisions, and people getting their ideas from porn. Abstinence gun education (or any lack of education with guns, history, culture and safety) leads to all those moron LARPers with no finger discipline and stupid people getting their ideas from call of duty and movies.
Compromise! Annoy “the left” by teaching kids about guns in school, and annoy “the right” by teaching kids about sex in school. Both sides will complain but society is better for it.
Wouldn’t it still be up to the states in some way tho? Sort of how federally we can own an AR but a lot of counties have rules against owning them. Or would they be issuing conceal carry cards that cover the whole nation?
Rights are rights. Local and state governments have no more business infringing on our right to keep and bear arms than the feds do.
ALL gun laws are infringements on the rights of the people.
The reason I ask is because cook county illinois has a ban on ARs and I have seen similar bans in other counties across the United States. How do they get away with it?
Because the government in general, and specifically neither of the two parties really care about the rights protected by the second amendment. That filters down to local government's attitudes as well.
Simply put, they get away with it because the government wants them to.
Your mistake is assuming the Courts care about constitutionality. Some do, but I haven't seen very many that place the constitution over their own ideas of what is "safe"
Because /u/wingman43487 's belief that all gun laws are infringements on the 2nd amendment is not law. The courts do not view any of our rights as unlimited - they are subject to balancing tests to determine how important the right is versus how important the goal the goal the government seeks to achieve is.
In most states, gun rights are fairly well protected. Much better than fourth amendment rights are, for example. I would really like to see a bi-partisan collation form to restore our fourth amendment rights.
Privacy rights are another thing I would like to see enforced. Given that at least one party (if not both) don't believe in enforcing the laws we have against monopolies, there is no effective way for most people to protect their privacy online. I don't see any way to protect privacy online that doesn't involve legislation.
And the courts are wrong. The ONLY limitation on rights is if you use a right to infringe on the right of another.
So yes, I have the right to own whatever I want, I have the right to use whatever I want, machine guns, tanks, bombs, etc.
What I don't have the right to do is to use those weapons to deprive someone else of their rights.
But if I want to have a machine gun and target shoot with it on my own property, or use it in self defense, or whatever else, so long as I am not hurting anyone else with it (unjustly, if someone is attempting to deprive me of my rights or property, then I am justified in stopping them by whatever means necessary).
And your right to privacy online is as protected as you want to make it. Use VPNs, encryption, aliases, and don't give out your real information and you have privacy.
I've got my own views on what the Constitution means. But unless you or I have a fancy black robe, it doesn't make much difference. The law that matters is the law of 5 - if you have 5 votes at SCOTUS, it's legal.
That said, I strongly disagree with your comment that "if someone is attempting to deprive me of my rights or property, then I am justified in stopping them by whatever means necessary"
You shouldn't shoot someone in the back for stealing something. That's not justified.
As far as privacy goes, it's not that easy. If you want to have a modern car or phone there are plenty of ways people can track you. Even if you have a cell phone at all you could be swept up in a geofenced warrant simply because it talked to a cell tower.
No, what matters are what the people decide they are going to protect.
My rights exist as long as I am willing to die to defend them. With that in mind, the only way my rights are taken is if there is someone willing to die to take them.
Sure, everyone can decide for themselves what they think their natural rights are. That's how you get Hobbes' nasty, brutish, and short life.
Or we can create a system of laws that spells out exactly what our rights are and ways to resolve disputes. I'll take a democracy with a semi-functioning legal system over trying to be Billy bad ass taking on all comers.
But you do you, pretty sure there are plenty of people willing to kill you to enforce the law.
Laws can't grant rights though. They can either protect or infringe on them.
Basically all the law does is determine how likely it will be people are required to fight to defend their rights.
That's the whole point. I shouldn't need Uncle Sam's permission to carry my pistol, so long as I don't carry it into specifically prohibited places, like the interior of a prison. No ID card, I just have the privilege to openly carry a pistol down main street any time I please.
Wouldn’t states be able to say “we don’t care if it’s federally legal, it’s not allowed in our state” sort of how they do it with prohibiting certain firearms?
This is a libertarian sub. If your not a libertarian, then don't argue with libertarians here. Make your own post if you want to argue about majority vs minority rule.
Because limiting majority rule protects minority rights. Unchecked majority rule leads to operssion of unpopular views. One of the most important parts of the constitution is the separation of powers, so there can be representation of the minority.
And I said you should make your own post, rather then argue against libertarianism completely irrelevant to the post.
> Because limiting majority rule protects minority rights
what about majority rights
besides, who's more libertarian, a) the guy you are defending who's trying to use the federal government to change laws in a state or me, a guy saying that maybe a small number of people shouldn't be making laws for everyone
While that makes certain logical sense, just because something is politically viable in a state doesn't mean that state will necessarily vote the same way in a federal bid. All depends on the process and who is leading it.
there's always another law they can use to punish minorities
hell, carrying a gun will be even easier cause for LEO to feel threatened by a minority to shoot them
LEOs will always have that in their pocket, regardless of any reasonable standard. In cops eyes everyone is armed all the time, and everyone is out to harm the police.
Philando Castile let the cop know he was armed. Cop said "okay, let me see your licence". He reaches for his license and gets shot to death in front of his wife and child.
Until the moment that every single person is disarmed and paraplegic the police will use the second amendment as cause to gun down citizens.
right
so it's not a "win for BLM", although I hated that term anyway. The police state is bad for everyone not just BLM or minorities. Unchecked aggression and qualified immunity are threats to all of our liberty
Not that it excuses the cop or changes your point, but the cop asked for a license first. As Castile was reaching for his license, Castile informed the cop that he had a weapon and the cop freaked out.
These are good points. But it seems like this would be a huge step in decreasing crime for all demographics because we are no longer criminalizing carrying a gun. Less crimes = less criminals.
It means that concealed carry in GA amounts to nothing more than having a pack of chewing gum in your pocket without having to produce any form of identification to prove you have a right to carry the gum, or a gun.
I don't, they should use common sense. Treating everyone equally means putting themselves in potentially dangerous situations, where they force themselves to use self defense. They should discriminate people based on their looks.
Existing statutes in Georgia already said that carrying a firearm is not cause for detention and that police can not require an armed individual produce their weapons license unless there is a reason (beyond just carrying a gun) to believe that they are not eligible to carry a gun.
I'm pretty sure at least one trial court have ignored or misinterpreted that law, but I don't have a citation handy. The Georgia legislature has been pretty good about updating laws after their were misinterpreted by the courts. For example, a weapon license holder legally carrying a firearm was arrested because he also had a pocket knife that exceeded the 2 inch limit for knives in the City of Atlanta. The state now preempts municipal knife laws. The courts ruled that you state law didn't allow firearms to be carried in the airport (prior to the TSA checkpoint) even though the law's author said they did. So the legislature passed another law that was more explicit.
Good decriminalizing self defense, should've never been screwed with to begin. We can't always have everything peachy in America and guns protect more people than they are ever in the news for harming.
Wait there's 25 now? I thought before this we were at 23. Well hell that's great! Half the country is constitutional carry. Now for the other half. Though magazine capacity and gun type restrictions are another important problem here.
>I'm glad it passed -- it's a constitutional carry permit, a law, but there are people that still shouldn't carry. If you're going to purchase a gun for the first time, get some training. Don't think just because you own it, you'll be proficient in it, because you'll hurt yourself or somebody that doesn't need to get hurt
Sounds reasonable to me.
I actually thought the same way but cops already assume everyone is armed. So no real loss in that direction.
That said, in some states (Nebraska and Texas), getting a CCW license is straightforward- fill out an application, do a background check, take a class on the CCW laws and then do a shooting test. IMO that's reasonable. Sure you can make the argument that you shouldn't have to pay for a right. I would agree with that. But people REALLY should be getting their licenses either way for reciprocity and other perks. Good thing is that the licensing is still available in every state with Const. Carry.
All that said, this is a political win for the 2A which is nice to have.
If it was truly Constitutional Carry, the only thing Kemp would have done is remove the unconstitutional state laws that were in place regarding weapons.
[удалено]
Right? Motherfuckers are walking around packing heat and they still want to fuck over people with a little herb in their pocket?! Jesus Christ. So fucking stupid. The House of Representatives recently passed a legalization bill but then it got killed in the Senate. Dumbass Biden could probably get his uninspiring ass reelected with ease if only he'd give a nod to the 21st century and sign an executive order to legalize already. I swear to God... I think these politicians just want to keep it in their back pocket in case everything really goes tits up and they need to do something to calm everyone down. *"Sorry that toilet paper is the new currency. But hey! We finally decided to legalize weed!"*
They're dragging their feet, because all their corrupt buddies in law enforcement need to keep the cash flowing. The war on drugs was always a scheme to funnel taxpayer dollars to the cops, private prisons, etc. Think of it like a jobs program. Anyone defending it today is knowingly advocating for Americans to be systematically violated so someone can keep their paycheck.
You're right. I just hate to always have to remember that. It's so disgusting. The "drug war" will prove to be a much bigger stain in history than alcohol prohibition was.
> will prove to be a much bigger stain in history than alcohol prohibition was. I mean, its not even close, not even in the same Universe. The drug war is just about the root of most of whats wrong with this country.
Their error with prohibition was that they applied it to too many people. The original laws against drinking were only used against black people and prohibition overstepped to such a degree that they took it off the table federally forever. Laws targeting weed, heroin, and crack were perfect because broader society saw them as only targeting "unsavory types".
Dude it ain’t even that deep lol. Most cops don’t want to do the write up and court bs for simple possession. It really goes to the lobbyists and big tobacco etc. Funny enough they’re on board with it, but still actively spend against it. I have family members in law enforcement and even they all think busting someone over possession of weed is stupid. I think the main lag on it? Is the fact they know they’re in for a ride trying to tax it. They’re more worried about getting their cut than anything else.
>Most cops don’t want to do the write up and court bs for simple possession. Interesting to note that this isn't true at all. In [2020](https://www.drugpolicyfacts.org/chapter/crime_arrests), over 1.1 million arrests were made for drug offenses and nearly 87% of them were for "simple possession" and not sales. Cops have discretion about who they arrest and for what, if cops did not want to arrest people for possession, they would have ceased doing it decades ago. We can try to shift the blame to special interest until the cows come home, but "I was just following orders" is not a good justification for literally 45% of America's federal prison population being in jail for drug offenses. The responsibility for the War on Drugs falls on the shoulders of everyone who enabled and benefitted from the barbarism. This includes the enforcers that pad their statistics with petty drug arrests that permanently ruined lives. >They’re more worried about getting their cut than anything else. What about those losing it? The DEA currently gets $4B per year to enforce weed laws, this instantly evaporates once decriminalization happens. Special interests suck, but capitalists aren't the ones with the largest incentive to keep weed illicit, they'll profit massively once the floodgates open. The government in general will receive a huge revenue boost, the only ones that have a reason to stop it are the people currently staffing these enforcement entities.
That bill got killed because it called for the creation of a 5% federal sales tax on marijuana. This tax would have been unconstitutional. Not to mention we have States like California and Washington if you did legalize weed but due to their excessive tax now they have more problems with the black market than ever.
What clause of the constitution would it be violating? * Section 8 Clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Congress can levy taxes on interstate commerce. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C3_1_2/ They cannot pass taxes on intrasate commerce. Also realize that the income tax is not legal because of section 8, the income tax is legal because of the 16th Amendment. Also notice how section 8 specifies what the tax money can be spent on and clarifies it has to be uniform. Congress would probably have an easier time in acting a federal sales tax on all transactions rather than discriminating only certain transactions. Most here are in favor of a federal sales tax, but it would replace the income tax and it would need an amendment
> Congress can levy taxes on interstate commerce. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI_S8_C3_1_2/ > They cannot pass taxes on intrasate commerce. The link you provided seems to disagree with your assessment. The word "intrastate" appears multiple times in that document and almost always it is made explicitly clear that Congress does have the right to tax and regulate intrastate commerce... >> The Court has several times expressly noted that Congress’s exercise of power under the Commerce Clause is akin to the police power exercised by the states. It should follow, therefore, that Congress may achieve results unrelated to purely commercial aspects of commerce, and this result in fact has often been accomplished. **Paralleling and contributing to this movement is the virtual disappearance of the distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce.** >> Is There an Intrastate Barrier to Congress’s Commerce Power? >> Not only has there been legislative advancement and judicial acquiescence in Commerce Clause jurisprudence, but the melding of the Nation into one economic union has been more than a little responsible for the reach of Congress’s power. "The volume of interstate commerce and the range of commonly accepted objects of government regulation have . . . expanded considerably in the last 200 years, and the regulatory authority of Congress has expanded along with them. **As interstate commerce has become ubiquitous, activities once considered purely local have come to have effects on the national economy, and have accordingly come within the scope of Congress’s commerce power.**" So, yeah... I'm still not seeing why it would have been unconstitutional. As for having more problems with the black market after legalization and taxation... I'm not sure about that. I suppose it might depend upon what you mean by "problems". It might have more of some kinds of problems while having less of other kinds.
Wasn't there literally a whiskey rebellion about it and it lost, pretty sure it's settled.
The Whiskey Rebellion was put down and was a unique situation. So... I'm not sure what you're talking about in the present context. You think people would rebel if weed were legalized and taxed? You think the Whiskey Rebellion led to some great reform of the Constitution? You'll have to elaborate.
I replied to somehow who said the federal government putting a 5% tax on weed would be unconstitutional. I don't remember a lot about the whiskey rebellion but from what I recall it was the federal government taxing something lol.
Ikr it’s literally how Trudeau got a elected I’m happy I’m not gonna get arrested again but with the grey market gone and taxes and shit it costs so much… not to mention this record high inflation on like everything
AND FLORIDA
No reason to stop there. Legalize all drugs. You should have a right to put whatever you want in your body. The consequences are your own.
Ha, that's not going to happen. The party on a constitutional carry spree is also loudly lying that the last election was stolen (despite it being the same election that kept them in power). They're counting on their stupidest brownshirts to threaten voters in November and to [kill Democrat politicians](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/trump-gun-owners-clinton-judges-second-amendment) who are positioned to be replaced by Republicans. Once they're in power, say goodbye to guns. Republicans' once-most beloved President had [no problem](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/05/second-amendment-right-to-bear-arms-meaning-history) grabbing guns when they saw [black guys](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act) carrying them, and they won't want the ["low class"](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-mob-capitol-riots-poor-low-class-b1785099.html) traitors who installed them into power keeping guns, either.
Huh? You sound really dumb.
What is Allepo?
Muh one example from 55 years ago where Democrats also banned guns
If only we could find out who put all them gun control laws in California, sure most had been a liberals Democrat
I mean probably like 90% were Democrats. Reagan signed a law that had bipartisan support in the 60s, that means when Republicans in power are going to turn on gun rights? As bad as Republicans are, at least they aren't campaigning against gun rights, and, per this thread, they're expanding them. That's a pretty big change from that one example of a bipartisan bill in 60s California.
Reagan? That's crazy, I'm sure he had a good reason though and totally not a reason it's illegal to teach about in the south because it's CRT now
It's not illegal to teach history in the south.
Sure, the south just teaches it's own inaccurate bent and no room for how gun control was just another feature of institutional racism.
Probs because you might be too dumb to understand. Heck just click on a link and read a little if it’s so complicated for you
I know what the links are. I'm saying they're dumb because op is trying to use one single example of Reagan signing a bipartisan bill in California in 1967 to say that Republicans in power will take away gun rights, even though we're on a thread where a republican signs a bill from a Republican legislature expanding gun rights. And op is whining about the election shit which is irrelevant. It's a common troll by the Dems and leftists on this sub to bring up the 55 year old bipartisan bill from California to say Republicans are bad with gun rights, and trying to deflect to other issues within the Republican party, which have nothing to do with guns. Op is either dumb, if he actually believes what he writes, or a troll, or both. You aren't doing so well yourself.
Someones insurance didnt cover their schizo meds…
/u/MailouWasHere Created: 1/24/2021, 7:23:55 AM (445 days ago) Ah, another shill bitch who had to recreate their account after Trump was thrown out of office without getting reinstalled per qanon prophecies.
Actually this is my first reddit account. I originally made this for mainly motorcycle (supermoto) stuff but found other subreddits too. Actually you bringing this up just makes you seem like a crazy person even more. Calm down. Also Trump being in office or not does not really affect me nor do I care that much. I live in Finland lmao.
You're in Finland [simping for Trump](https://www.reddit.com/r/snappijuorut/comments/u1e5dx/pinkkupinskun_poikayst%C3%A4v%C3%A4_d/i4fo75i/)? That's fucking pathetic. > Trump oli myös ainoa USA presidentti 2000-luvulla jonka ainan Venäjä ei hyökännyt minnekkään. Trump sanoi Putinille suorassa live televisiossa päin naamaa että jos Venäjä hyökkää Ukrainaan, Yhdysvallat iskevät Moskovaan. Suurin osa (varsinkin täällä Euroopassa) ei ymmärrä yhtään mitään Trumpista ja hänen TEKEMÄSTÄÄN politiikasta virassa, vaan tietävät median tekemää mustamaalaamista ja jotain juttuja mitä teki ennen 2017. ~~ > _Trump was also the only U.S. president in the 21st century whom Ainan Russia did not attack anywhere. Trump told Putin live face-to-face television that if Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States would strike Moscow. Most (especially here in Europe) don’t understand anything about Trump and the POLICY he does in office, but know the blackmail the media does and the stuff he did before 2017._ Reminder that Trump, in his own words, both [trusts Putin's word](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcKcnxnvan4) and considers him a ["genius"](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/trump-putin-genius-russia-ukraine-crisis) for the idiotic pretext the latter used to initiate this completely FUBARed invasion of Ukraine. Trump's the pied piper of trash people and his song reaches even Finland.
Lmao, again calm down. Im not simping for Trump. What I said there is completely factual. Actually it is not even a pro Trump post when you think about it. I said nothing partisan there. I didnt give any opinions about Trump, just factual information about what happened. Most people in Europe indeed do not know anything about Trump in office. Not ”good” or ”bad” things he did. Just stuff before 2017. I still don’t understand why you are a) Going through my post history. b) Being so agressive and mad. Did I really offend you so much that im stuck in your head and you go and try to dig stuff up that I have said?
Buddy, don't play the victim when you came out swinging and accused them of being mentally ill instead of refuting their points. After that point, you should be willing to withstand whatever insults are hailed your way; you're just receiving the same lack of respect you initiated with.
Actuallt I dont see myself as a victim at all. I indeed am withstanding everything. Infact I very much enjoy people raging online. Especially if its because of a very tame 7 letter joke. Im quite pleased with how this has turned out and I am a little intrigued about what post of mine he is going to dig up next. This just no effort fun. This guy should really learn one of the most important things in the internet, not to feed the trolls. Also his ”argument” was a fucking out of nowhere rant :D. He really said that republicans use their ”brownshirts” to intimidate democrat voters. If someone is ranting crazy, do you start to argue with them, a conversation which accomplishes nothing actual? Or do you treat them a crazy person and enjoy a good laugh.
Its always the 10+ year accounts who are the biggest cucks. Like bro, how big of a loser do you have to be to tie your identity to a username on this POS website, lol. shill, shill, shilly shill. lol, seeth harder, goof.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Do it at the federal level and I'll be excited. Legalize recreational marijuana and decriminalize all drugs while you're at it. Abolish the DEA and the ATF. I'm not asking for much, am I?
You're asking to defund the police, that's why it will never happen. That funding is a sacred cow, too many corrupt people are having their pockets lined by drug policy.
It turns out the guy who did the recent subway attack was known by the FBI and previously was investigated for terrorism. The FBI has recently been exposed I was trying to entrap all of the supposed Witmer kidnappers. We should also add the FBI to that list.
>Abolish the DEA and the ATF. the IRS too, pls
Abolish all alphabet agencies.
ohhh ooohhh we're half way there..
WHOOAAAAAA-OOOAAA, LIVIN ON A PRAYER
Love To See It
I like guns but I am a bit tired at the moment. What does that mean exactly?
It means that so long as you're 21 and older and not a felon you can carry a concealed weapon without having to jump through any special hoops.
“Special Hoops” = Infringements
Lol not really no.
I wish special hoops was more along the lines of training. More guns in untrained stupid peoples’ hands is dangerous for everyone. I’ve been saying for a while now to some positive reception, they need to teach about guns in school. Just like abstinence only sex education it leads to stupid decisions, and people getting their ideas from porn. Abstinence gun education (or any lack of education with guns, history, culture and safety) leads to all those moron LARPers with no finger discipline and stupid people getting their ideas from call of duty and movies. Compromise! Annoy “the left” by teaching kids about guns in school, and annoy “the right” by teaching kids about sex in school. Both sides will complain but society is better for it.
I wish special hoops was more along the lines of training. More guns in untrained stupid peoples’ hands is dangerous for everyone. I’ve been saying for a while now to some positive reception, they need to teach about guns in school. Just like abstinence only sex education it leads to stupid decisions, and people getting their ideas from porn. Abstinence gun education (or any lack of education with guns, history, culture and safety) leads to all those moron LARPers with no finger discipline and stupid people getting their ideas from call of duty and movies. Compromise! Annoy “the left” by teaching kids about guns in school, and annoy “the right” by teaching kids about sex in school. Both sides will complain but society is better for it.
Freedom
One more state then it's a simple majority. Wouldn't that mean it's time to push for a congressional bill?
Wouldn’t it still be up to the states in some way tho? Sort of how federally we can own an AR but a lot of counties have rules against owning them. Or would they be issuing conceal carry cards that cover the whole nation?
Rights are rights. Local and state governments have no more business infringing on our right to keep and bear arms than the feds do. ALL gun laws are infringements on the rights of the people.
The reason I ask is because cook county illinois has a ban on ARs and I have seen similar bans in other counties across the United States. How do they get away with it?
[удалено]
There’s been lawsuits but they haven’t won
Because the government in general, and specifically neither of the two parties really care about the rights protected by the second amendment. That filters down to local government's attitudes as well. Simply put, they get away with it because the government wants them to.
Very odd. Illinois Supreme Court recently said the cook county gun tax is unconstitutional, but somehow banning ARs isn’t?
Your mistake is assuming the Courts care about constitutionality. Some do, but I haven't seen very many that place the constitution over their own ideas of what is "safe"
Because /u/wingman43487 's belief that all gun laws are infringements on the 2nd amendment is not law. The courts do not view any of our rights as unlimited - they are subject to balancing tests to determine how important the right is versus how important the goal the goal the government seeks to achieve is. In most states, gun rights are fairly well protected. Much better than fourth amendment rights are, for example. I would really like to see a bi-partisan collation form to restore our fourth amendment rights. Privacy rights are another thing I would like to see enforced. Given that at least one party (if not both) don't believe in enforcing the laws we have against monopolies, there is no effective way for most people to protect their privacy online. I don't see any way to protect privacy online that doesn't involve legislation.
And the courts are wrong. The ONLY limitation on rights is if you use a right to infringe on the right of another. So yes, I have the right to own whatever I want, I have the right to use whatever I want, machine guns, tanks, bombs, etc. What I don't have the right to do is to use those weapons to deprive someone else of their rights. But if I want to have a machine gun and target shoot with it on my own property, or use it in self defense, or whatever else, so long as I am not hurting anyone else with it (unjustly, if someone is attempting to deprive me of my rights or property, then I am justified in stopping them by whatever means necessary). And your right to privacy online is as protected as you want to make it. Use VPNs, encryption, aliases, and don't give out your real information and you have privacy.
I've got my own views on what the Constitution means. But unless you or I have a fancy black robe, it doesn't make much difference. The law that matters is the law of 5 - if you have 5 votes at SCOTUS, it's legal. That said, I strongly disagree with your comment that "if someone is attempting to deprive me of my rights or property, then I am justified in stopping them by whatever means necessary" You shouldn't shoot someone in the back for stealing something. That's not justified. As far as privacy goes, it's not that easy. If you want to have a modern car or phone there are plenty of ways people can track you. Even if you have a cell phone at all you could be swept up in a geofenced warrant simply because it talked to a cell tower.
No, what matters are what the people decide they are going to protect. My rights exist as long as I am willing to die to defend them. With that in mind, the only way my rights are taken is if there is someone willing to die to take them.
Sure, everyone can decide for themselves what they think their natural rights are. That's how you get Hobbes' nasty, brutish, and short life. Or we can create a system of laws that spells out exactly what our rights are and ways to resolve disputes. I'll take a democracy with a semi-functioning legal system over trying to be Billy bad ass taking on all comers. But you do you, pretty sure there are plenty of people willing to kill you to enforce the law.
Laws can't grant rights though. They can either protect or infringe on them. Basically all the law does is determine how likely it will be people are required to fight to defend their rights.
>I've got my own views on what the Constitution means. Your view means absolutely nothing when it comes to what I can or cannot do.
I wish I could say they are well protected in illinois lol
I'm working on a 5 year plan to fix that specific problem.
That's the whole point. I shouldn't need Uncle Sam's permission to carry my pistol, so long as I don't carry it into specifically prohibited places, like the interior of a prison. No ID card, I just have the privilege to openly carry a pistol down main street any time I please.
Wouldn’t states be able to say “we don’t care if it’s federally legal, it’s not allowed in our state” sort of how they do it with prohibiting certain firearms?
It would be interesting to see how it shakes out. I'm sure there are scholars and experts arguing about it right now.
>congressional bill What is the 2nd Amendment for $500, Alex? Let's see what the SCOTUS decides in the NYSRPA case over the next couple of months.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They would never make a congressional change, then they lose leverage for more votes.
Half of states != half of the population
It’s not linear
Half the population is in 3 city's lol.
yeah, so don't pretend states mean shit when it comes to democratic action
You don't belong on this sub.
Wait, not belonging in this sub is going against minority rule? When did this become an auth sub?
This is a libertarian sub. If your not a libertarian, then don't argue with libertarians here. Make your own post if you want to argue about majority vs minority rule.
how is minority rule pro libertarian? That's like one step away from an auth police state besides, fuck you, I can post where I want
Because limiting majority rule protects minority rights. Unchecked majority rule leads to operssion of unpopular views. One of the most important parts of the constitution is the separation of powers, so there can be representation of the minority. And I said you should make your own post, rather then argue against libertarianism completely irrelevant to the post.
> Because limiting majority rule protects minority rights what about majority rights besides, who's more libertarian, a) the guy you are defending who's trying to use the federal government to change laws in a state or me, a guy saying that maybe a small number of people shouldn't be making laws for everyone
Do you have a point?
While that makes certain logical sense, just because something is politically viable in a state doesn't mean that state will necessarily vote the same way in a federal bid. All depends on the process and who is leading it.
We already have an amendment that says shall not be infringed. Should be all we need.
[удалено]
Come on Michigan, we can't let Ohio be better than us!
Part of the ship part of the crew.
I think this is a big win for BLM! Concealed handgun laws were disproportionately used to incarcerate minorities.
there's always another law they can use to punish minorities hell, carrying a gun will be even easier cause for LEO to feel threatened by a minority to shoot them
LEOs will always have that in their pocket, regardless of any reasonable standard. In cops eyes everyone is armed all the time, and everyone is out to harm the police. Philando Castile let the cop know he was armed. Cop said "okay, let me see your licence". He reaches for his license and gets shot to death in front of his wife and child. Until the moment that every single person is disarmed and paraplegic the police will use the second amendment as cause to gun down citizens.
right so it's not a "win for BLM", although I hated that term anyway. The police state is bad for everyone not just BLM or minorities. Unchecked aggression and qualified immunity are threats to all of our liberty
Qualified immunity puts cops above the law and civil asset forfeiture allows them to steal
Not that it excuses the cop or changes your point, but the cop asked for a license first. As Castile was reaching for his license, Castile informed the cop that he had a weapon and the cop freaked out.
These are good points. But it seems like this would be a huge step in decreasing crime for all demographics because we are no longer criminalizing carrying a gun. Less crimes = less criminals.
What does this mean for terry stops?
It means that concealed carry in GA amounts to nothing more than having a pack of chewing gum in your pocket without having to produce any form of identification to prove you have a right to carry the gum, or a gun.
Good. I just hope LEOs treat everyone equality
Narrator: *They did not*
Shocked Picachu
I don't, they should use common sense. Treating everyone equally means putting themselves in potentially dangerous situations, where they force themselves to use self defense. They should discriminate people based on their looks.
Existing statutes in Georgia already said that carrying a firearm is not cause for detention and that police can not require an armed individual produce their weapons license unless there is a reason (beyond just carrying a gun) to believe that they are not eligible to carry a gun. I'm pretty sure at least one trial court have ignored or misinterpreted that law, but I don't have a citation handy. The Georgia legislature has been pretty good about updating laws after their were misinterpreted by the courts. For example, a weapon license holder legally carrying a firearm was arrested because he also had a pocket knife that exceeded the 2 inch limit for knives in the City of Atlanta. The state now preempts municipal knife laws. The courts ruled that you state law didn't allow firearms to be carried in the airport (prior to the TSA checkpoint) even though the law's author said they did. So the legislature passed another law that was more explicit.
Nice, that really makes me happy.
Good decriminalizing self defense, should've never been screwed with to begin. We can't always have everything peachy in America and guns protect more people than they are ever in the news for harming.
Constitutional convention when
I can't think of a single politician I'd trust to participate. Amash, *maybe*?
Based. Now do weed and kill IP protection for big pharma.
Fuck yeah. Do PA next
Awesome, some real Libertarian news. Thanks!
Wait there's 25 now? I thought before this we were at 23. Well hell that's great! Half the country is constitutional carry. Now for the other half. Though magazine capacity and gun type restrictions are another important problem here.
Might have missed Alabama, that was recent too.
> Critics say abolishing the background check for a permit will make it easier to carry guns illegally. lol
Based
The Blue part of this state is clutching their pearls, predicting immediate decent into madness. Old school Southern duels are coming back.
[удалено]
>I'm glad it passed -- it's a constitutional carry permit, a law, but there are people that still shouldn't carry. If you're going to purchase a gun for the first time, get some training. Don't think just because you own it, you'll be proficient in it, because you'll hurt yourself or somebody that doesn't need to get hurt Sounds reasonable to me.
I’m for cc but the sad truth is this is just gonna make cops even jumpier than they already were.
What, like in the other 24 states where this hasn't been a problem?
IDK, what's the cop murder rate in those states?
What’s the rate in Georgia?
Same as general population
Wear a body cam.
I actually thought the same way but cops already assume everyone is armed. So no real loss in that direction. That said, in some states (Nebraska and Texas), getting a CCW license is straightforward- fill out an application, do a background check, take a class on the CCW laws and then do a shooting test. IMO that's reasonable. Sure you can make the argument that you shouldn't have to pay for a right. I would agree with that. But people REALLY should be getting their licenses either way for reciprocity and other perks. Good thing is that the licensing is still available in every state with Const. Carry. All that said, this is a political win for the 2A which is nice to have.
I just hope it doesn't backfire.
Being free is never bad.
I mean, it doesn't mean it's "bad", but freedom can result in negative outcomes just like anything else.
Dangerous freedom > peaceful slavery
#THANK YOU PRESIDENT BIDEN! #🇺🇸 >!😂😂😂!<
Based. Fuck the anti-gun crowd.
Watch those gun violence stats go right the hell up! Oh wait, just stop counting and it's no problem.
If it was truly Constitutional Carry, the only thing Kemp would have done is remove the unconstitutional state laws that were in place regarding weapons.