States May Lose Gun Makers Over New Laws

[JFootin]

The anti-gunners keep trying to chip away from so many directions. NY lawmakers are considering a bill to mandate microstamping on the firing pins of every gun. Something that could be so easily defeated with a file, yet would add enormous cost to the manufacture of every firearm, as well as the cost of scanning electron microscopes to read the imprint on shells recovered at the scene of crimes. Duh!!!:001_huh: :crazy::hurt:

http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/states-may-lose-gun-makers-over-new-laws/

[chrish]

Not that I'm OK w/ it, but NY is lost to the liberal cause anyway. More gun companies moving to the 'free' states and ultimately where those of us that live in 'free' states will all be better off if they relocate!

[JFootin]

I think the national government, under some proper conservative leadership, should crack down on those states that so clearly and drastically violate constitutional rights and make them stop it! :mad:

[Jeremiah/Az]

I have always wondered why so many guns are made in anti gun states! New York & Mass. for example!

[JERRY]

They can move to the south and have less government interference, lower taxes, cheaper labor (because the cost of living is less).

[AJBert]

Sounds pretty much like the bill that tried to force ammo manufacturers to do the same things. Just the same old song with politicians trying to get their names in the news with yet another "new" gun law.

The left seems not to learn from the past, unfortunately.

[Planedude]

Now, Devils avidocate, ain't we headin to ahhhh sweeet spot here? After them there smartry arties up in there Neeeew Yark figger this tehc-nolo-gee out, I be thinking about alllll the great things that can be "macro-stampperd" for the future.
We could get micro stampped golf clubs... and there balls so I be knowing what dang blam idjet bustted out the window on my puick-up.
Next we can macro treat the beer boottles, muggs and Jugs so that when you be waking up Hung-the-****-in over we can check the stammpre and find out who dunn it to us...

Okay I'm done.

I guess the point is that once these IDIOTS get an nonsense tech added to our lives, how do they have one shread of belife that their lives are not NEXT!
Show a lawer a way to new way sue and he will follow it. His brothers in crime that won't follow on good principal, will get rich stopping them.
Every american loses.
Yeash!
Tech can improve security, but can not prevent crime any better than New Laws can legistlate moraity. Maybe someday as a nation we will come to deal with our issues instead of slapping a few band aids on the mortal wounds.
Peace.

[les strat]

They can move to the south and have less government interference, lower taxes, cheaper labor (because the cost of living is less).

Yep! Bring it on! We'll take gun maufacturers with open arms. And encourage our citizens to buy them. :)

[Longitude Zero]

I wish they would ALL move to the Sooner Nation. That way local dealers would have the edge on supply. As to the Feds cracking down on states it is a states rights issue and the feds have very little Constitutional wiggle room to intervene in the internal affairs of any state.

[JERRY]

well, if gun makers moved from the northeast to the southeast or southwest obama and holder would have less distance to ship their guns to the cartels in mexico.....just sayin'.....

[Chuck54]

How about Mega stamping drunk drivers on the forehead

[jlottmc]

While I would not like to see that many people out of work, I'm sure there is plenty of room down this way for any one that wants to relocate and stay with the gun makers, just leave the politiks at the border you came from.

[Longitude Zero]

just leave the politiks at the border you came from.

Agreed. If there is one thing Okies and Texans universally hate, it is the N'oreaster attitude.

[ltxi]

I have always wondered why so many guns are made in anti gun states! New York & Mass. for example!

And Connecticut. Because they established themselves a couple of centuries ago in the cradle of the original defenders of our freedom.

Ironic, ain't it?

[les strat]

And Connecticut. Because they established themselves a couple of centuries ago in the cradle of the original defenders of our freedom.

Ironic, ain't it?

My thoughts exactly. Guess they don't teach history in those states.

[tv_racin_fan]

I wish they would ALL move to the Sooner Nation. That way local dealers would have the edge on supply. As to the Feds cracking down on states it is a states rights issue and the feds have very little Constitutional wiggle room to intervene in the internal affairs of any state.

Excuse me sir? The Constitution makes it quite clear that the federal govt does indeed have the ability and in fact the mandate to prevent the several states from violating the precepts of that document/ Else what use is the document if the states can ignore it?

The problem we have now (as I see it anyway) is the SCOTUS ignores the document as it wishes and lets the states violate it at will so long as those states violate those portions of that document the SCOTUS wishes them to. Specifically the second amendment.

As evidence I submit that the federal govt and the SCOTUS has interfered in the states efforts to deal with the illegal immigrant issue that the federal govt has not dealt with even tho it is the federal govts responsibility as laid out in that document.

[muggsy]

Pay no attention to JFootin. He's just one of those bitter clingers who's trying to hold on to his religion and his guns. :) Way to go, J.

[Planedude]

Excuse me sir? The Constitution makes it quite clear that the federal govt does indeed have the ability and in fact the mandate to prevent the several states from violating the precepts of that document/ Else what use is the document if the states can ignore it?

The problem we have now (as I see it anyway) is the SCOTUS ignores the document as it wishes and lets the states violate it at will so long as those states violate those portions of that document the SCOTUS wishes them to. Specifically the second amendment.

As evidence I submit that the federal govt and the SCOTUS has interfered in the states efforts to deal with the illegal immigrant issue that the federal govt has not dealt with even tho it is the federal govts responsibility as laid out in that document.

Amen to that brother. When the elected goverment comes to belive it can pick and choose what parts of the CONSTUTION to ignore and what parts to enforce with fury, then it's time for them to go.
Every goverment ignores or inubes some laws. Spitting on the sidewalk, leaving your trashcan on the curb too long even crossing the street aginst the light. Thats not the samething we have seen out of Washington lately.
Guess we will find out how the rest of America feels about it soon enough.

[chrish]

Excuse me sir? The Constitution makes it quite clear that the federal govt does indeed have the ability and in fact the mandate to prevent the several states from violating the precepts of that document/ Else what use is the document if the states can ignore it?

The problem we have now (as I see it anyway) is the SCOTUS ignores the document as it wishes and lets the states violate it at will so long as those states violate those portions of that document the SCOTUS wishes them to. Specifically the second amendment.

As evidence I submit that the federal govt and the SCOTUS has interfered in the states efforts to deal with the illegal immigrant issue that the federal govt has not dealt with even tho it is the federal govts responsibility as laid out in that document.

In LZ's defense, he said INTERNAL affairs of the states. I'll have to agree w/ that. There is a difference in the purpose of the Consititution to replace the AoC w/ something that had teeth to get the states to participate in the federal government. It's entirely another to have the federal government control the states in their entirety...which is where we've been heading for 100+ years.

[RedRyder]

It seems to me that the drafters of our constitution knew that there would be some idiots out there trying to trash this 2nd amendment when they added those six little words "that right SHALL NOT be infringed". I'm still confused even with states rights how they can get around the SHALL NOT be infringed. Just my opinion of course I could be wrong.