Why not? Why does anyone think they have a right to decide what exactly people are allowed to own. Nobodys going to bother you if you own 1000 knives? As long as a person is not hurting other people, then the Government needs to stay the hell out of peoples lives. I think people need to learn to mind their own business and stop tryingn to conteol other peoples lives. Its time “We the people” take back conteol of the Government that is suopose to work for us. !!

What has always been puzzling to me is how Congress can grant themselves jurisdiction or an undelegated power to “punish” felonies, according to their delegated power to regulate interstate commerce, whenever they deem it “necessary and proper” because jurisdiction, “cannot be taken from the state.” This is because “it is a fundamental precept that the rights of sovereignty are not to be taken away [from the state] by implication. Does the federal government have exclusive jurisdiction in Lancaster County in Pennsylvania, one of the original states of the Union? Is Rubin King’s domicile on federal territory and is he a federal citizen?

Since 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 and if the “necessary and proper clause” is NOT a grant of power, but simply a provision for carrying into execution the delegated powers enumerated, how then does the “necessary and proper’ clause grant power to the United States federal government to “punish” Rubin King for the sale of a few hundred hunting rifles to friends and neighbors under the commerce clause?

The power to regulate commerce between the states of the Union would surely include the power to promulgate rules by which commerce is to be governed. The question I have is, does the power of Congress to regulate commerce allow Congress to “punish” by and through the “necessary and proper” clause” the sale of hunting rifles and ammunition by a farmer in Pennsylvania?

Congress or the United States federal government has been delegated the power to regulate commerce but has it been delegated the power to regulate anything and everything that supposedly has a “substantial effect” on such commerce? I don’t think so. And Rubin King selling a few hundred hunting rifles surely would not affect the overall sale of rifles in commerce between the states of the Union.

If we take this idea of the sale of a few hundred rifles affecting commerce to its logical conclusion then Congress will soon be exercising “police power” over the purchase of anything and everything no matter how small under the “necessary and proper” clause.

If the power to regulate allows Congress to “punish” through the “necessary and proper” clause then there would have been no reason to delegate, by enumeration, the power to “punish” counterfeiting the securities and coins of the United States (Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 6) in exercise of Congress’s power to coin money and regulate the value thereof under the Constitution (Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 5).

Remember, “Concerning crimes and punishments, the objects of the delegated power of the United States are enumerated and fixed and I would think that the “necessary and proper” clause is not a delegation of power to Congress to regulate every aspect of life. But what do I know?