Light Bulbs are getting Expensive / New Tax

dpb wrote in news:fbqig7$r1e$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org:

Meaning enact clearly unconstitutional laws and count on the risk,difficulty and expense of challenging them. (against a gov't system with unlimited time,resources,and funds.)

It's SO reassuring that you and so many others find that acceptable.

Reply to
Jim Yanik
Loading thread data ...

Thanks... :)

There's an essentially zero out-of-pocket cost approach way to approach fixing it that I outlined previously.

I'm left wondering why if it is such a fundamentally egregious problem someone hasn't raised the issue in the last 90 years or so???

Reply to
dpb

Indeed it is. The wording is:

"The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;"

I read that as saying that it puts an upper limit on the number of representatives, not a lower limit. The "shall not exceed" applies to the number of representatives, not the thirty Thousand. It legal for a Representative to represent more than 30,000, but not less, with the one noted exception.

This interpretation is supported by the following phrase saying that "but each State shall have at Least one Representative". This would not be necessary if the limit was on the maximum number of people that a Representative could represent.

So the current situation is entirely within the letter of the constitution.

-- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

...

Damnit, Doug, you went and let the cat out of the bag by actually And it was so much fun pulling Yanik's chain but was beginning to pale... :)

--

Reply to
dpb

Interesting linguist turns. It says that the shall not exceed one for every 30K, then the comma, then the but (indicating an upcoming transition) and THEN the each state. The comma and the but both indicate a different clause and different thought. It reads basically that no state (including those with less than 30,000 people) will have less than one rep. The rest have to be apportioned so that they no more than represent 30K voters.

Actually one is generally looked at as a minimum in most areas of law, accounting, politics, physics, etc.

Maybe, probably not.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

The first clause reads "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" not "The number of people shall not exceed thirty Thousand for each Representative".

-- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

Same thing, different wording, after the original wording. Either way says specifically one rep or every 30,000 with a minimum of one per state. Sets maximums first one per 30K, then minimum of at least one per state.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

dpb wrote in news:fbs2m1$4o4$ snipped-for-privacy@aioe.org:

I just explained that above; "Meaning enact clearly unconstitutional laws and count on the risk,difficulty and expense of challenging them. (against a gov't system with unlimited time,resources,and funds.)"

Reply to
Jim Yanik

That's the AG's job -- write a letter explaining your concern -- I'm sure he'll follow it up immediately as it has been such an egregious oversight all these years...

The other alternative I gave you costs at most a first class stamp...

Are either of those actions that time-consuming or out of your economic reach?

Reply to
dpb

Actually in this case I don't think the AG would have a dog in this hunt until someone else files. The AG (actually the Solicitor General which I think is under the AG) defends laws, not tries to get them overturned. So, I doubt contacting Justice would do you anyone much good.

If this was a real concern, I would think that one of the fringe "mess with the government every chance they get" groups would have filed by now. I would think it would be their wet dream to get every law since

1917 or so tossed out as illegal.
Reply to
Kurt Ullman

...

Not necessarily only defend -- also can file in order to get ruling on the constitutionality in order to "vet" a law.

Also, yet another alternative route is to ask Representative to ask for an opinion.

As usual, it is far more self-fulfilling to vent spleen on usenet while tilting at windmills than to take even the most simple of expedients that might even begin to actually address the issue (if there were even a real issue to address which is, of course, the fundamental problem here)...

--

Reply to
dpb

Gun control laws have to be national in order to do any good. Municipal gun control laws merely make crooks get guns from out of town.

Meanwhile, national gun control laws will probably fly about as well in USA as Prohibition did.

What I do think we need is repeal of a few of USA's 28,000 gun laws, such as:

  1. The one banning computer records of gun sales where law enforcement can trace from. So when a gun is traced from a crime, law enforcement has to go to the gun shop where the gun was sold and look at a paper record of who the gun was sold to.
  2. The law allowing only ATF to make routine inspections of those records.
  3. The law allowing anyone to get a license (FFL) to buy/sell guns across state lines as long as there is no criminal record or record of mental illness found within some time limit (I forget - 30 days?). This license has a stated intent of being for gun shops. However, this license cannot be denied on basis of lacking commerical property, business license if located where one is required, etc. Last time I checked, about 75,000 people had this license. There are nowhere near that many gun shops. Many have their addresses being non-gun-related businesses such as gas stations, or residences. I'm sure probably 60,000-plus of those license holders without gun shops do nothing worse than get guns to their friends and relatives without sales tax. But with 75,000 of these licenses around and limitations on inspecting records, it gets a little tough to find the couple thousand or whatever who are selling guns to criminals.

I know, fixing this is mere drops in a bucket.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

In , Jim Yanik wrote in part:

Now, how does the rate of gun crimes in Australia, England and Japan compare to that of USA?

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

A friend of mine from long ago had a Federal Firearms License. He did not have a gun shop, nor any other kind of shop He was a police officer, though..

Reply to
willshak

Switzerland has a high rate of home presence of guns larger than handguns, and strict laws on carrying them around.

I would feel safer if everyone (without criminal record or record of specific disqualifying mental illness in past specific X years) had a gun of the size of what is in Swiss homes (or maybe a little bigger), and nobody is allowed to have anything smaller.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

I agree making laws in one city or one state are useless west of time and thing is that our legislators know that. you see if they make laws that applies across the country it would put lots of lawyers out of jobs and perhaps judges to Tony

Reply to
tony

I don't remember the details offhand, and don't care enough to look them up, but I do know the number of FFLs in current status went WAY down with the last set of revisions to the law, and the price increase for the renewal, up to something like 200 bucks, now. Most of the 'kitchen table' dealers are now out of the business, just like they wanted. And you do pretty much have to have a business address. And yeah, it can be the same building as a bait shop/gas station. (Pretty common in rural areas.)

Personally, I miss being able to buy guns at the local ma'n'pa hardware, like was dirt common when I was a kid. People didn't demonize or worship guns back then, any more than you would a fishing rod or a crowbar. They were what they were, and nobody really thought about it a whole lot. And when you gave a kid a .22 at age 13 or so, and taught them how to shoot it, the 'forbidden fruit' aspect was close to nil.

As to banning them- sure, just as soon as everyone else turns theirs in, I'll give mine up.

aem sends....

Reply to
aemeijers

snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:

their's is rising,while ours in the US is dropping.

why not look at total violent crime? People lacking guns cannot defend themselves against criminals as well as armed citizens can. I note that UK is now banning pointy knives.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:

Nonsense.Japan and UK are ISLAND nations(no bordering countries for easy gun smuggling),and stil have gun crime,because criminals don't obey their gun control laws. The Yakuza make a BUSINESS of gunrunning;that implies a market for guns in Japan.In Australia,a man was making guns by the 100's in a home shop,had sold 100s before the police caught him.It would seem there's a market for guns there,too.

National gun laws make criminals get them from out of the country. The machine guns that US police take from druggies are not ones that were legally owned and stolen;they were smuggled in by other druggies.

Well,we Americans have a Second Amendment restricting gov't from infringing on the People's Right to keep and bear arms. Don't like it ? Amend the Constitution,or move to a gun control country of your choice.

You don't know much about gun traces,do you? Canada has a gun registry,and it's proven to be a huge WASTE of time,resources and money.

Protecting citizens privacy;news media has published gun permit holders names in order to "out" them and thus expose them to criminals seeking to steal guns. It's like posting a sign on your house; "guns inside".

BATF-troop has been cracking down on FFL holders and has drastically reduced the number of FFL holders;there used to be far more than the 75K you mention.Now a FLL can lose their licens eover a simple error on their paperwork,like a misspelling or other meaningless human error.

It's interesting that Vermont allows concealed carry with NO permit needed;you carry if you wish to,and yet they don't seem to have any problem with it.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com:

except that those Swiss people possessing machine guns and riles often take them to ranges and shoot for sport,aside from their militia obligations,and using their own ammo,not the packaged warstocks issued them. Shooting sports are big in Switzerland and Germany. (Germany mandates "silencers" on handguns at the range,IIRC!) Of course,-LAWS- prohibiting public carriage (or simply possession)of any firearm are not obeyed by criminals,only law-abiding citizens. That holds true worldwide.

Oh,yeah,THAT's going to keep criminals from getting handguns,or threatening people with other weapons,or simply by being bigger,stronger,or more numerous.I note that police cars are now targeted for burglary to take their guns. Orlando police have lost several that way,if a few short months;two were a silenced machine pistol and a full-size full-auto rifle.The Feds have lost even more,over 600,the last I read,some full-auto machine guns. (and what's to keep someone from sawing off a rifle or shotgun? it happens often enough)

Of course,you were right when you said your would "FEEL safer",because that's what it's all about;your "feelings",not anything rational or practical. Just Utopian wishful thinking.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.