Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

If the Commerce Clause sinks, what would you like to see go first?

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Happy Hunting, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. Happy Hunting

    Happy Hunting

    Jul 27, 2010
    :supergrin:I'm getting excited for a potential decision on Obamacare tomorrow. I will not, however, book a honeymoon before she says yes.

    Even more exciting than that is the that Scalia is now hot under the collar about the 1942 precedent for the Interstate Commerce Clause. If anybody follows decisions and majority opinions you will know that this seemingly insignificant case about consuming wheat on your own farm has been the source of the overbearing government we have today.

    The Wikipedia of the case

    If anybody wants some biased information on it (I won't pretend something with Mark Levin speaking is objective) here's some more stuff. The Levin video on this page lets you learn with your ears and look at new Trijicon optics with your eyes.

    In the hypothetical world where this decision is overturned, what else would you like to see get tossed out?

    I think I would like about 60% of government agencies to hit the bricks but I wanted to poll some people and see what they think is the most egregious law that is only legitimate based on this 70 year old precedent.

    FYI: This is the article that got me started on all this tonight.
  2. Fed Five Oh

    Fed Five Oh NRA Member

    Dec 28, 2006
    I'd like to see NFA tossed.

  3. Happy Hunting

    Happy Hunting

    Jul 27, 2010
    It would be nice to be done with all the preban, postban sample hooplah wouldn't it? I know my bank account would be licking its chops for a select fire 11.5'' M6A3 with a can.

    I wonder how much the price would go down for suppressors if there wasn't as much red tape for them as there is for pre-'86 autos and SBR's?
  4. Fed Five Oh

    Fed Five Oh NRA Member

    Dec 28, 2006
    Well, we know suppressors & SBR's would initially go down by $200.00.

    MG prices would plummet. There would be a whole lot of current fully transferable MG owners wailing.
  5. Happy Hunting

    Happy Hunting

    Jul 27, 2010
    I think suppressors would go down by a lot more than the $200 stamp when people realize they don't have to forfeit a great deal of their rights and time in order to get them. The market would explode and I think prices would fall 50% or so over a couple of years.

    I mean with the 1000 bucks for an M4-2000 + 200 stamp + 50 transfer(and he's cheap) I could have gotten a NICE shooter. I know the manufacturer has no control over the stamp and the transfer, but that 1 pound piece of metal is only priced that high because not that many people are buying them.

    This is just my opinion and I do not make suppressors, but I think the cost making a Colt 6920 or Commander is going to be far higher than making any can.
  6. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    Sep 28, 2009
    The only thing biased here is you.

    Levin is one of the most learned Constitutional scholars I've ever heard. He has reasoned dissertations on the COTUS and related decisions that are grounded in the document itself along with his extensive experience both as an attorney and chief of staff in the Reagan Justice department. He knows what he's talking about and doesn't just rant mindlessly…he has supporting facts, precedent and logic for everything he discusses. It's not like he's some idiot MSNBC anchor, he knows his stuff.
  7. cowboy1964


    Sep 4, 2009
    I thought the decision was most likely coming on Monday?
  8. Fed Five Oh

    Fed Five Oh NRA Member

    Dec 28, 2006
    Well, I was thinking about the whole supply demand thing as well.

    More people wanting silencers equals greater demand, equals higher prices.
  9. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    Jan 16, 2005
    The NFA was not passed under the commerce clause jurisdiction; it was under the taxing power, so this would not affect the NFA. That's why you can pay a tax to own a machinegun.

    At the time, they didn't think commerce gave the feds the authroity to regulate things inside states, just things crossing borders. Now they think it gives them authority to do anything they want.

    The GCA of 1968 was commerce clause. It would ne nice if you could mail order a gun, just like a knife or a book, again, like you could when I was born.
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  10. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    Federal Drug Laws
    Low flow shower heads and toilets

    just off the top of my head
  11. Guss


    Jul 1, 2010
    Speculating on this is like speculating on how things would be different if the South had won the war. It's all over boys.
  12. HexHead


    Jul 16, 2009
    It ain't over. It's only been on hiatus.
  13. RHVEtte


    Nov 20, 2007
    But the artificially imposed delay of unspecified time throws a giant wrench into supply and demand curves. With no way to know how long the NFA stamp may take, manufacturers have no way of knowing how many suppressors they may sell in a year, so they have to make as much margin as possible on the ones they do sell. If NFA was thrown out, they would be able to better estimate how many they'd sell a year and would be able to cut back on margin, especially given the increased demand once people can get them easily.
  14. VinnieD


    Mar 26, 2011
    Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms would henceforth only be used to refer to a fun weekend.