Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
2. Frank is in the business of selling fireworks
Fri Oct 9, 2015, 09:44 AM
Oct 2015

And unless Frank is making the fireworks himself ordering them from out of state or country provides the interstate component necessary for federal regulation. Even if Frank is making them himself, if he is wholesaling them to others this would provide the interstate component needed.

The same is true for gun dealers in a state. Nobody is disputing federal jurisdiction in the regulation of people who are in the business of selling firearms.

We are talking about Jim, a resident of the state, purchasing some fireworks from Frank and taking them 20 miles back home. Jim's neighbor Ed wants some fireworks so Jim sells him a few packs. The state could prohibit Jim from selling them to Ed, the feds would have no jurisdiction.

What is your theory as to why this type of sale was exempted from day one, and remains exempt even with most of the public in favor of ubc's?

I am not a lawyer but have studied this for many years and have worked in our justice system for over 20 years.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

There are some court cases that dispute your interpretation... Human101948 Oct 2015 #1
Frank is in the business of selling fireworks pipoman Oct 2015 #2
Study a bit harder... Human101948 Oct 2015 #3
Unless you can answer the question your made up scenario is just that pipoman Oct 2015 #4
I did not make up that scenario...the law journal did... Human101948 Oct 2015 #5
Did you answer the question? pipoman Oct 2015 #6
I guess I must be suffering from early onset dementia... Human101948 Oct 2015 #10
Thats what I thought.. pipoman Oct 2015 #19
One of the most preposterous NRA arguments around. DanTex Oct 2015 #7
I'll ask you the same question... pipoman Oct 2015 #8
Because of the GOP and the gun lobby. DanTex Oct 2015 #9
Apples and oranges pipoman Oct 2015 #11
Umm, both are restrictions on interstate commerce, in fact NFA is far more restrictive. DanTex Oct 2015 #12
Again, like 60% of Republicans want private sale checks.. pipoman Oct 2015 #15
But not the ones in congress. Therein lies the problem. DanTex Oct 2015 #16
I might have bought that 15 years ago.. pipoman Oct 2015 #17
It's not a question of "buying" it, there was recently a vote on UBCs, and the GOP DanTex Oct 2015 #18
What rights do they claim apply to private sales which doesn't apply to buying from a gun store? pipoman Oct 2015 #20
Sorry but the "commerce clause" has been rendered meaningless by various Supreme Court decisions. PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #13
Gonzales only demonstrates that state law doesn't trump federal law... pipoman Oct 2015 #14
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why Lie When The Truth Is...»Reply #2