IS the term "The People" in the second amendment different

doesn't matter. the Wickard Bullshit has been getting disfavored constantly the the USSC. I suspect the NFA will be struck down in terms of intrastate weapons in the next three years

 

https://www.vpc.org/studies/gunfour.htm

In 1998 it was all but 7 states with manufacturers large enough for the VPC to note them.
American gun ownership has only increased from that point.

Making a gun is accomplished in all 50 states, and DC, year round. Every day.
You're trying to use interstate commerce: I'm pointing out home manufacture is and has always been an option, so even assuming that dog can hunt post Bruen to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (it can't) I don't have to move bupkiss in interstate commerce and unlike in Wickard you won't have a mandatory participation market (a rationed food market during a declared war) to lean on for non-participation counting as participation.

You're hitting sovereign citizen levels of lack of understanding of American Jurisprudence dude.

 

Miller's lawyer didn't present evidence or make arguments, and later got a federal court appointment for what a good boy he was.

 

The United States was founded upon the natural right philosophy of John Locke.
You're citing Hobbes in the idea that the government may simply entirely curtail the right to self defense and trying to taint US law with that brush.
We don't follow Hobbes. We didn't found the nation on Hobbes.
We founded it on Locke, and you'll note several distinctions from what Hobbes poses in his Leviathan. Specifically, Locke doesn't hold that .govs have free reign to do whatever.

 

Okay, but all meaningless. The nation today is a far cry from what it was at the founding.

 

The law says the federal government can regulate firearms no matter their method or place of manufacture.
Your source though you chose not to quote it:
https://www.vpc.org/studies/gunfour.htm

14 states with <500 firearms manufactured per year. ERGO firearms manufacturing is interstate commerce.

Cross state lines:
With a firearm
To buy a firearm
To sell a firearm...Interstate Commerce

buy your ammo at Dicks or some similar place? Interstate Commerce

Fire your gun across the Ohio river? Interstate commerce.

Making your own bullets? Buy any of the components? Interstate Commerce

You fail to understand a SCOTUS ruling that says...in essence...you manufacture a gun it impacts gun prices everywhere. therefore your manufacturing, your firearm, and ammunition are subject to regulation.

Don't blame me. blame a 9-0 scotus ruling and affimation.

 

VPC is well known as a dishonest propaganda center.
the supreme court is rolling back the mutation of the commerce clause as foisted upon us by FDR.
you're wrong btw.

 

What you're trying to push, balancing wise, will require constitutional amendment.
The 2a doesn't allow for it. See Bruen.

Doesn't matter if "things have changed". Rules are rules: See Article V.

 

Those are the one's reported IE Boutique manufacturing. You DO understand if I make a gun I don't have to report I did so.... right?

Commerce clause doesn't allow them to violate the 1st or 4th amendments, doesn't allow them to violate the 2nd either.
The 2nd is an outright limitation on their power to do ANYTHING which would infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Like banning the sale of ammo.

 

If you make a gun you are not a firearms manufacturer.

BUT

If you do make a gun, both the firearm and it's manufacture is subject to federal regulation.

 

and hopefully the Bruen decision and others will start stripping the federal government of powers it never should have had in the first place

 

And yet I am manufacturing an arm.

Subject to the 2nd amendment, the standards for which are referred to in Bruen. You just find yourself an analogous law from the time of the founding doing what you want to do, ok champ?

 

Emphasis mine so you can understand I'm talking about this sentence.

You misunderstand wickard v filburn.
They had the "you made your own thus prices thus we own you" because it was during WARTIME RATIONING FOR FOOD.
That doesn't apply in every instance ffs, and certainly doesn't apply today because we're not in a wartime rationing market for FOOD.
And no commerce regulation could act to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, see Bruen..

I invite you to go google how many cases are currently working through the pipeline to SCOTUS post bruen that are 2a cases.

 

Law?

Put your self manufactured firearm in your pocket and go to the airport.

Then come back and tell us it can't be regulated.

 

Uhhhh
Still applies today.
Same precedent that allows for federal regulation of pot grown and used in a single state.

 

Yes of course, but there is a big problem. If our government refuses to abide by the Constitution, the 2A is meaningless.

Our government is lawless. It’s gone rogue. Will the American people recognize this and turn it around?

 

Sensitive places did exist during the founding. An airplane is analogous to a captain of a ship barring passengers and crew from being armed.
Want to mention courthouses next sport?

 

Pot remains federally illegal, unless you're talking about 2018 farm bill derived hemp products (which can have a **** ton of psychoactive ingredients in them because boomers wrote the law and don't understand chemistry, but I digress).

As to federal prohibitions on marijuana: Do you see a 2nd amendment for marijuana friend?

 

Do you lose your gun rights if the government downgrades you from "people" to "vermin" like Trump did to half the nation?

 

Why don't you provide us the regulations in place in 1789
prohibited guns in the captain's quarters on ships and
that prohibited guns in federal courtrooms before federal courtrooms existed.

 

It does and the precedent allowing regulation of pot is the same as the one allowing regulation of firearms.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

 

Is there a 2nd amendment preventing the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear doobies sport?

 

You can see Bruen, sensitive place laws were already in place including courtrooms and polling places.
You can go look up various libels (admiralty cases) from the era if you're interested.
Were I to do the research for you, you'd simply demand something else. I'm simply pointing out you're incorrect so anyone who cares to know, knows.

 

Why are you trying to derail this thread?

That Firearms can be regulated has been a fact since the early 1800s.
That the federal government can regulate firearms has been a fact since the late 1800s.
That the Federal government can regulate firearms manufactured and used in a single state has been a factsince the 1930s.

These are facts no matter how much you wish they weren't.

 

Last one.