ggwyo: "As a Wyoming citizen if they don't pass it, all of the representitives that vote against it could easily find themselves out of a job in 8 months."

There's no reason to suffer for 8 months. All the states need to make recall laws so the voters can give the boot to bad-apple lawmakers and judges, IMO. We also need federal recall laws for the same reason.

True, but unlike most states Wyoming's legislators only get meet for about 20 days this year for the budget session, and won't convene again until next year after election time. The best part about having a citizen and part time government is so if they don't vote the way the people wish we can replace them without spending more of our tax dollars to do so (for a special election)

I can change the phrase to anybody. any individual. any human. And my meaning is the same.

I'm not talking about legalese garbage like you are. I'm referring to the constitution - and who or what it applies to.

Michael Boldin: Now you've lost me again. You can't just ignore the enfranchisement of the 14th Amendment "person" by calling it legalese garbage. This doesn't encompass "anybody. any individual. any human." It deals with a specific class -- those within the jurisdiction.

And you cannot maintain that NO rights were given by the Constitution. The 14th gives those "within the jurisdiction"--human and corporate--every right they possess; a mini-constitution for derivative citizens of the U.S., if you will. These "persons" "subject to the jurisdiction" absolutely do NOT have the RTKBA, nor access to the other nine amendments. How could they? A large proportion of them aren't even human!

I agree with you that the first ten restrictions enumerated in the Bill of Rights are upon the federal government, but only against encroachment on the states and state citizens. It does not affect the relationship between the federal government and its "persons".

That's a major misunderstanding of the constitution. NO rights are given to you by the constitution. They are yours by your birthright.

The constitution doesn't apply to me, it doesn't apply to you. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government - primarily the federal and in a few places, the states.

The 2nd amendment, like the rest of the bill of rights, is a restriction on government power as a way to ensure your RTKBA!

MichaelBoldin: "That's a major misunderstanding of the constitution. NO rights are given to you by the constitution. They are yours by your birthright."

If we're on the same sheet of music, as you undoubtedly know, James Madison, regarded as the Father of the Bill of Rights, thought the Bill of Rights was unnecessary. After all, regardless that the 1st A., for example, expressly prohibits Congress from regulating our basic rights, the Constitution never expressly delegates such powers to Congress in the first place. So Madison probably saw the BoR as "redundant."

The problem is that citizens have forgotten the delegated powers aspect of the Constitution and consequently fall into the trap of thinking that we get our rights from the BoR. I've been there.

Escapee: "But that’s not what you all came here to talk about, is it? You want to talk about FIREARMS, a federally regulated class of items."

The problem is that you have so far failed to reference explicit language in the Constitution which clearly delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms.

B. Johnson: You win. There is no clear delegation of power to Congress to regulate intrastate civilian firearms, nor the price of locally-produced corn, milk, electricity, insurance, banking, water quality, nor dog licenses (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14cfrag... footnote 7.)

Yet you don't win: The feds DO control all of the above, via the Commerce Clause which provides for federal regulation of interstate commerce, and thru the 14th Amendment which creates federal "persons"--both human and corporate--which are controlled (and taxed) as they "reside" within the states and "within the jurisdiction".

That is my main point, and the reason "Constitutionalists" have been getting their asses whipped. My minor point, about this thread's topic the RTKBA, is that there is a clear difference between Arms, which are reserved to state control (and to the People--Article X), and FIREARMS, which are a narrowly-defined class of GOODS IN TRANSIT which are un-argueably subject to federal legislation.

Escapee: "Yet you don’t win: The feds DO control all of the above, via the Commerce Clause which provides for federal regulation of interstate commerce, and thru the 14th Amendment which creates federal “persons”–both human and corporate–which are controlled (and taxed) as they “reside” within the states and “within the jurisdiction”."

You're evidently in denial that the eight justices that FDR ended up nominating to the USSC perverted the Founder's intentions for the commerce clause. They did so to enable corrupt, power-hungry federal lawmakers to overstep their constitutional limits. And by doing so, FDR's puppet justices scandalously ignored that the states (the people), not the federal government, are the ultimate seat of authority in the good old USA.

The problem, as I've ranted elsewhere, is that citizens have not been teaching their children the Constitution and its history for many generations, particularly the constitutionally enumerated principle of state sovereignty. As a consequence, citizens are oblivious to the fact that the corrupt federal government has been wrongly overstepping its constitutional limits for many decades.

So it's a matter of reconnecting citizens with the Constitution, IMO, so that citizens can use their voting power to destroy the phony powers now associated with the Oval Office and Congress.

Aloha B.: There is a missing link in all the above here, and that is the pretext for all the perversions Roosevelt and his progeny have created.
Federally, the root of the cancer we're complaining about here is the unabated state of national emergency declared by Roosevelt on March 9, 1933. It has enabled a variety of abominations from the theft of our gold, to the GCA of '68, 'executive orders', etc. In turn, it was built on a tweaked version of the Trading w/the Enemy Act of 1917, and has helped to make us all the subjects of federal tyranny and micromanagement.
We can teach and learn the Constitution all we want, but if the Constitution has been de facto suspended by a contrived 'emergency', at the federal level, we're dealing w/the symptoms, not the cause.
These 9th/10th Amendment/nullification efforts at the state and local level are probably some of the best tools we have left to save this Republic.

Escapee: "Yet you don’t win: The feds DO control all of the above, via the Commerce Clause which provides for federal regulation of interstate commerce, and thru the 14th Amendment which creates federal “persons”–both human and corporate–which are controlled (and taxed) as they “reside” within the states and “within the jurisdiction”."

You're evidently in denial that the eight justices that FDR ended up nominating to the USSC perverted the Founder's intentions for the commerce clause. They did so to enable corrupt, power-hungry federal lawmakers to overstep their constitutional limits. And by doing so, FDR's puppet justices scandalously ignored that the states (the people), not the federal government, are the ultimate seat of authority in the good old USA.

The problem, as I've ranted elsewhere, is that citizens have not been teaching their children the Constitution and its history for many generations, particularly the constitutionally enumerated principle of state sovereignty. As a consequence, citizens are oblivious to the fact that the corrupt federal government has been wrongly overstepping its constitutional limits for many decades.

So it's a matter of reconnecting citizens with the Constitution, IMO, so that citizens can use their voting power to destroy the phony powers now associated with the Oval Office and Congress.

Escapee: "But that’s not what you all came here to talk about, is it? You want to talk about FIREARMS, a federally regulated class of items."

The problem is that you have so far failed to reference explicit language in the Constitution which clearly delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms.

B.Johnson: "Where does the Constitution expressly delegate to the federal government the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms in the first place?" That would be the Commerce Clause, (Article I, section 8, paragraph 3)

"I wouldn’t be surprised if the feds actually had no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate civilian firearms." Do you have a cite to support this? Have you studied the definition of "firearm" (26 USC 5845(a)? Would you be surprised if you were to find that a firearm is not Arms?

"I hope to see state legislation which eventually puts a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes." Constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes are illegal already.

We need citizens who understand the law to defend themselves against all abuses of government, not more ill-conceived political fixes.

Escapee: "Where does the Constitution expressly delegate to the federal government the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms in the first place?" That would be the Commerce Clause, (Article I, section 8, paragraph 3)"

I'm not interested in PC perversions of the commerce clause. Not only does the Constitution not expressly give Congress the power to regulate civilian firearms in the same manner that the clauses of Article I, Section 8 delegate other powers, but you are ignoring that Jefferson had clearly indicated that the state legislatures have exclusive control over intrastate commerce.

The problem is that people like you ignore that activist justices nominated by FDR perverted the Founder's intentions for Clause 3, wrongly ignoring that Congress is required to comply with Article V to have any hope of expanding its powers, in this case to regulate intrastate civilian firearms.

Why would you think it's simply obvious that the commerce clause justified regulation of _intrastate_ firearms, such that you give that answer without any elaboration?

Tom: Thank you for the question. I failed to make my point clearly.

A "firearm" is defined at 26 USC 5845(a), as cited in my February 10 post above.

Title 26 is the Internal Revenue Code.

So, how do intrastate Arms become "firearms"? The owner declares them to be! As does the writer of the above article, the Wyoming legislature, the NRA, and 99 and 99/100ths of the mislead American public.

Help me out here. Is there any way to state this more plainly?

Escapee, do you mean that if I call my Beretta a pistol, or a weapon, or a gun, or an arm instead of calling it a firearm, and if I don't register it as a firearm, the Feds can't regulate it as a firearm, unless of course it actually does conform to 26 USC 5845(a)?

Sounds too easy.

is there a government form to register just guns or do they have to be firearms?

is my pistol a firearm because everybody says it is or is there a law that says what is a firearm and what is not?

if I call my weapons guns or arms and not firearms do I need a license at all?

Escapee:
Title 26 is part of the Internal Revenue Code and doesn't apply in this context. The language of 26 USC section 5845(a) applies only to chapter 26 of the US Code (as it states therein).
Title 26 is not relevant to the issue B Johnson raised and it's very odd that you seem to think it is relevant. The definition of the term 'firearm' in the Internal Revenue Code does not have any relevance to the question B. Johnson posed.
There is no explicit provision in the Constitution that allows Congress to regulate the sale of firearms. The clause that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states doesn't apply since the sale of a firearm from person A to person B is not a transaction involving ANY state.
Even if you want to misread the so-called "interstate commerce clause" to give Congress the power to regulate transactions occurring between citizens of different states, B. Johnson specifically asked about INTRA state transactions - not INTER state transactions. It's clear he's drawing a distinction between transactions that do not cross state borders. So, again, there is no Congressional authority.
I can't tell what your problem is but it seems as if you just want to argue for the fun of it.
For everyone else here who is trying to move the discussion forward, it's a shame.
Anyway, it's also a shame citizens feel they have to pass a law such as this to clarify rights they already have and were clearly not delegated away to government.

B.Johnson: "Where does the Constitution expressly delegate to the federal government the power to regulate intrastate civilian firearms in the first place?" That would be the Commerce Clause, (Article I, section 8, paragraph 3)

"I wouldn’t be surprised if the feds actually had no constitutional authority to regulate intrastate civilian firearms." Do you have a cite to support this? Have you studied the definition of "firearm" (26 USC 5845(a)? Would you be surprised if you were to find that a firearm is not Arms?

"I hope to see state legislation which eventually puts a stop to constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes." Constitutionally unauthorized federal taxes are illegal already.

We need citizens who understand the law to defend themselves against all abuses of government, not more ill-conceived political fixes.