From the article:
police say those arrested are part of the same gang and can be "connected to approximately 15 shootings in Salt Lake City…
arrested for investigation of being a restricted person in possession of a gun…
was arrested for investigation of being a restricted person in possession of a gun…
arrested for investigation of being in possession of a weapon by a restricted person…
being a restricted person in possession of a gun…
arrested for investigation of being a restricted person in possession of a weapon…
arrested for investigation of being a restricted person in possession of a weapon…
I’m sure they purchased their firearms from licensed dealers of legal private sellers. I’m sure they all have training and knowledge of the law and use of a firearm.
So tell me how all of those “common sense” gun control laws are working.
And some folks have the audacity to ask me why I feel I need to carry a firearm with me All Of The Time.
The gun charges sound like add-ons to drug charges, since possession of firearms in conjunction with sale or possession of illegal drugs carry still MANDATORY minimum sentences that are extended for each firearm in possession of the individual charged.
These are good to know if you live in a state that allows marijuana possession, since the feds still consider marijuana to be illegal. The nightmare scenario for gun owners would be if an anti-gun DOJ subpoenaed a state’s record of medical marijuana card holders and then bounced that against CCW or 4470 records.
Here’s a good summary of mandatory minimum sentences for various federal crimes. Firearms and drugs minimums start on page 16
Correct, there has been quite a bit of discussion about that kind of stuff. A person can legally possess a fire arm until a bag of pot shows up, then they are considered a restrict person. It’s a pretty long list that not only includes substances but also includes some actions as well.
There’s a fair amount of federalism policy involved, namely: Who makes and enforces drug laws, the federal government or states? If you answer, the feds because drugs travel in interstate commerce, then you open the door to a good deal of federal laws and enforcement in all sorts of areas and close the door to local control and local laws. Think: Would you rather have a dysfunctional Congress and the Administration’s bureaucracies or states regulate guns, abortion, marriage, schools, elections, etc?
Federal drug laws also arguably run afoul of the 10th Amendment since they do not represent a power explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The plain language of the 10th Amendment is pretty clear – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The problem is that most State politicians are just as corrupt and dysfunctional as those in DC.
People tend to push for State rights when those rights align with their wants. But when they don’t align they are quick to turn to Federal regulations to support their positions.
For instance I live in a very conservative town and people here are always gripping about how federal laws and regulations keep them from doing what they want. But now that a company is pushing to open a big strip mine on the edges of town all those pro State rights people are quoting chapter and verse from the federal endangered species act and clean waters acts, etc. to try and stop the mine.
“People tend to push for State rights when those rights align with their wants. But when they don’t align they are quick to turn to Federal regulations to support their positions.”
That is so true.
Whenever gun owners buy a new firearm, they fill out a 4470, which is a federal form with federal laws governing what firearms an individual may or may not have. People should be asking why the feds have jurisdiction over firearms regulation in the first place since it is not a power delegated to the United States under the Constitution, and therefore, if the 10th Amendment means anything, should be a power reserved to the states.
But the world we live in has gutted the Bill of Rights and we regularly turn a blind eye to violations.
But if not for the federal courts people in States like CA, NY, etc. would have no 2A rights at all. The Constitution and Bill of rights should not end at State boarders.
Ideally State and Federal governments would be working together to protect the rights of their citizens instead of working with and/or against each other to take away as many of our rights as they can.
Not to beat a dead horse, but relying on federal courts to protect 2A rights is a shaky strategy. Old men (mostly) appointed to jobs for life, unaccountable to the people as recalls require a Congressional impeachment and trial. And, no way for courts to enforce their edicts if states or the Feds just ignore them (as the Gov of NM just did).
The Bill of Rights is made applicable to state and local governments by the 14th Amendment, but they regularly ignore it as events in NM, CA, Chicago, DC, NY, etc demonstrate. The Fed’s authority over firearms – what’s legal, what’s not – is a relic from Prohibition when the ATF was established and started making firearm rules/regulations. It should have gone away when Prohibition ended. But, as Ronald Regan once observed “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a Government Program.”
I don’t feel at all comfortable relying on a bunch of appointed judges to protect any of my rights. But I also believe that a person’s rights shouldn’t radically change every time a person crosses an invisible internal boundary and that States shouldn’t be allowed to violate those rights on any old whim they choose.
I’m sure they all have training and knowledge of the law and use of a firearm. 
” John Wick 2