Posted on 08/02/2017 8:26:22 AM PDT by Mat_Helm
HOLY SHITE! An actual, legal, Constitutional use of Federal power (to protect a Right of We the People, from abuse by the State)?!
Does it negate any/all ‘gun control laws’ at the Federal level as well (for the same reason)? One can dream, no?
Yeah, I don’t see this seeing the light of day
It is. In the Heller decision the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot outright prohibit a person's right to own a gun. As Justice Scalia wrote:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”"
So it is indeed a 10th Amendment issue. My state of Missouri is very open as to who may carry a firearm and where and when. Illinois is the opposite. That's up to the folks of Illinois to decide. I would not want the federal government to tell them that they must adopt the practices of Missouri than I would want the federal government to tell us that we must adopt the practices of Illinois. The 10th Amendment prohibits that, and I'd rather it kept on doing so than allow otherwise.
WOW!! There is one person in NY who is pro gun. Not from NYC or Long Island I’m sure
The Second Amendment refers to Arms and is not specific. Arms means any type of weapon.
Perhaps the congressman could change the language of his bill to refer to arms instead of mentioning a few specific types of arms? Or phrase it as “arms, including, but not limited to, pistols, revolvers and rifles.”
Just for clarification, it about sums up the attitude of the Framers. Of course, they were working from the point of view that the states had their own bills of rights so any infringement danger was from the new and potentially powerful federal government. Post-incorporation, where we are today, is a different story.
Excellent!
However - the state constitutions could, and typically would, expand rights over and above the federal constitution. The states are not supposed to undermine what the federal constitution supplies! The whole point of the 10th Amendment was / is to protect the states, and the people thereof, from infringement or dissolution of those rights that are guaranteed under THE CONSTITUTION. No state can deprive me of my RKBA, or any other right contained in the BOR, save by due process in response to an objective criminal act. That is the point of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
This is a trojan horse. The second amendment is pre-existing. There’s no need to legislate it. Putting in laws like this can be abused in the future. If it turns out the Dems take control of all three branches of government again, the Second Amendment would be functionally gutted.
This is bad law.
EXACTLY!
I just think we need to be very sparing in the use of preemption. Anti-federalism is a distinctly two-edged sword.
Agreed. This is a rare moment when I agree with preemption, because it is protecting a Constitutional right.
I don't understand your point. Federal gun control laws already apply to all the states. Do you recall the 1994 Federal AWB? NFA 34? GCA 68?
It appears this proposed law attempts to prevent states from enacting more stringent gun laws than the Feds impose. Why it's limited to long guns I have no idea. It's probably all just red meat for the base anyway. /cynical
Sooner or later that magazine ban would have to be reconciled at the USSC with other circuits that rule that magazine bans infringe on the 2A. There are too many hypotheticals in that example to make a good case for a federal law allowing any magazine size. My biggest worry in all of these arguments is when the Dems take over again and pass another AWB with federal magazine limits.
But, but Congressional Republicans are useless, or worse.
The 10th Amendment was dead on arrival and remains dead. Maybe we should have a con-con and pass it again because the first one isn't working.
Now you hurt my feelings. I was about to propose a new Constitution amendment that would require the Feds to obey the tenth amendment. </s>
The Constitution is the law if it suits their purpose, when it doesn't they ignore it, simple as that.
Welcome to California where everyone is a criminal unless you are exempt and in the legislature or law enforcement and there is no more second amendment? The courts do nothing and I thank God someone is attempting to do something about it in congress.
We are all frogs in the pot and your state will be next.
The REAL problem would be the so-called “Courts”. They for once would DEFEND state’s rights, saying it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the Fed.gov to preempt more restrictive state gun laws. BET ON IT!
All the more reason for the voters to see them as they truly are
God will take care of McCain
Prove to me they are not still in charge?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.