paramudduck wrote:Ohio
House Bill 315 Introduced 10/16/09.

but still not passed

I think these are just the first baby steps to states putting their foot down and taking back their sovernty. We'll see how long the powers that be allow this to keep going on. Right now, they are tied up in health care law suits and immigration. IF Obama cuts corners (again) and signs the small arms treaty with the UN, then there will be a fight on. Of course, supposedly, he can sign all he wants, but until it's ratified by the senate, it's not legal. We now know, this doesn't get in the way of the white House agenda.

Herbalpagan wrote:I think these are just the first baby steps to states putting their foot down and taking back their sovernty. We'll see how long the powers that be allow this to keep going on. Right now, they are tied up in health care law suits and immigration. IF Obama cuts corners (again) and signs the small arms treaty with the UN, then there will be a fight on. Of course, supposedly, he can sign all he wants, but until it's ratified by the senate, it's not legal. We now know, this doesn't get in the way of the white House agenda.

Even IF he signs, and even IF the senate ratifies, the right can not be revoked.......the second amendment does NOT guarantee TRTKBA, it only PROTECTS that right, that right comes from a higher power. If they take away the second, the people will defend the right anyway.

Sarge,
The reason why I think it is taking to long is becuase we have one Mayor I know of that is anti-gun. and alot of dragfoot in legislation, Not everyone in Ohio cares for guns. They dont prize their freedoms. like More open-head people do. I am glad we live in are state. but passing new laws are slow here in Ohio. but I am with you GIVE US ARE FREEDOM!

So if I understand my law right (and I'm not an attorney, so hold your fire), all of the "parts" that went into making a gun wouldn't have to be manufactured in the state for the gun to be manufactured in the state. I would think that any kind of build that takes a reasonable amount of skill and effort to put together would be covered under this.

Does that makes sense or does anyone know for certain?

I would think that if it's something like a revolver with the cylinder shipped separately, it probably wouldn't necessarily be considered "manufactured" in the state. But something like a built from scratch AR using ordered parts that are fitted and assembled seems like it would.

Max

These kinds of laws bring warm feelings to my heart...My personal thoughts are as folllows. The McDonald vs. Chicago case has laid some groundwork for the good guys to go after those bad laws. If you look at the 2nd Ammendment Foundation site you will see new lawsuits going forward based off of the latest Supreme court ruling.
Heres what I would do:
1. Start the wave going by challenging the initial responses to the ruling. -- Lawsuits already files agaist Chicago for their new registration scheme
2. Challenge all gun laws that are blatently arbitrary. This is already being done in a case in New York State basically challenging the need for a substatial reason beyond general fear. Next on my sights would be New York City.
3. Chalenge the sporting purposes test part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. If the Supreme cases are settled law, and the rights protected by the 2nd ammendment exist seperate from militia service, AND military weapons are specificallly protected by the 2nd ammendment (Read the Miller Supreme court case), then this SHOULD be an easy provision to "shoot down".
4. After all of those are hacked apart, go after the 1934 NFA. Based on all the other things cited above it should be an easy win as a matter of law. The Miller case was decided because the Justices were not shown that a short barreled shotgun was a weapon in common usage by the military.(which it was)

I am not a lawer..

Holy, Mr Bruce is a thinker!!

Nice

Right on Mr Bruce. I've often wondered why the 1934 NFA hasn't been challenged. The Bureau was skating on pretty thin ice when that case went to court, and they were probably relying on the judges being ignorant of that particular fact.

Well in my view it was a wierd confluence of circumstance that allowed that ruling to go forward. But if you read the ruling it isnt ALL bad per se. Other courts have used it to uphold some very draconian gun laws when a plain reading of the ruling reveals something differebt entriely. The Miller case was an apeal regarding a conviction under the NFA for possesing an un-registered short barreled shotgun. And, whether the NFA was consitutional.
There was no case presented by the Non-Gov't side due to "scheduling irregularities"
In my reading of the case, if the court had been presented with evidence that short barreled shotguns were in use with the military they would have ruled the NFA or most portions of it to be unconstitutional.
Here is the Miller case boiled down Mr-Bruce style:
1.All weapons in common use by our military are protected by the 2nd amendment.This includes machine-guns, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, silencers, and some AOW's
2. The 2nd Ammendment did not give us any rights. Those were given by our Creator.The Bill of rights just says whats already there.
Now for some fun. If the Miller case is still "good law" after the Heller and McDonald cases then some really good things start to come togtether.
Miller :Weapons in common use m=by the military are protected under the 2nd Ammendment +
Heller/McDonald : The 2nd Mmendment protects the right to firearms completely unconnected with military service =
The NFA is mostly unconstitutional, and we can have those weapons whether or not we have or have not bee in the military...Note, I am NOT a lawer but I read ALOT.

I wonder if a full auto was produced in one of these states if it could be purchased with no restrictions by the FEDS.