Unconstitutional Federal Gun Control HR 45

The Federal government is overstepping its bounds, as stated in the 2nd and 10th Amendments. While the legal interpretation debate has raged for years, the proponents of federal gun control sometimes argue the constitution is a “Living Document” and is subject to change over time. Our founders did not believe the living document argument and neither should you.

Let’s look at the wise words of one of our founders:

"The extent of our country was so great, and its former division into distinct States so established, that we thought it better to confederate as to foreign affairs only. Every State retained its self-government in domestic matters, as better qualified to direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens, than a general government so distant from its remoter citizens and so little familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts."
--Thomas Jefferson, to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483

"The States supposed that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers." --Thomas Jefferson, to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the States are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." --Thomas Jefferson, to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168

Where in the quotes of Thomas Jefferson does he say the constitution should be a living, ever changing document?

HR 45 is written in a way that supersedes state law, which is exactly what the 10th Amendment protects against as written by our founders. Sec. 601 of the bill orders the states to comply with federal law, while not restricting the states if they choose to make the law harsher in its regulation or criminalization of acts related to firearms. The controversial power designated to the Federal Government by the Commerce Clause, and later the Necessary and Proper Clause, disrupts the 10th Amendments purpose. However, even these clauses cannot be interpreted (in my opinion) to allow such an order over the states that is not of justifiably related to commerce between states.

I believe Gov. Rick Perry was referring to the 10th Amendment issue as a federal government overstepping their bounds, and not him supporting succession as eluted to by those over at the Huffington Post.

You be the judge.