FR Poll Thread: Does the Interstate Commerce Clause authorize prohibition of drugs and firearms?

Free Republic ^ | 11-3-05

[inquest]

There's a new poll up on the side. Do you think the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution authorizes federal laws against narcotics and firearms? Now lest everyone forget, this isn't asking whether you personally agree with such laws. It's about whether your honest reading of the Constitution can justify them.

While you're thinking it over, it might help to reflect on what James Madison had to say about federal power over interstate commerce:

Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

I'll be looking forward to your comments.

[Mojave]

But you can't show where I've "tried to slink past", can you?

You mean other than removing it from the middle of your quote and still not addressing it?

WE COULD OWN SHIPS AND CANNONS!!!

We can still own ships and cannons.

[crickets]

[Mojave]

Oh, sorry. That's inquest that did the selective quote. You just followed him.

[tacticalogic]

You mean other than removing it from the middle of your quote and still not addressing it?

You pissing and moaning about selective quotes. That's rich.

[inquest]

We can still own ships and cannons.

Apparently this fact is important to him for some reason. He seems to feel quite strongly about it. Kind of a bizarre obsession.

[Mojave]

You pissing and moaning about selective quotes.

I confused you with inquest. Honest mistake.

[tacticalogic]

Apparently this fact is important to him for some reason. He seems to feel quite strongly about it. Kind of a bizarre obsession.

Bread and circuses.

[Mojave]

Apparently this fact is important to him for some reason.

I get it. It's important that we used to be able to own ships and cannons, but it's not important that we still can.

Too funny.

[tacticalogic]

I confused you with inquest. Honest mistake.

The honest mistakes aren't the problem.

[Mojave]

The honest mistakes aren't the problem.

Nope. Pinning your hopes on an empty argument was.

[tacticalogic]

Nope. Pinning your hopes on an empty argument was.

Spin on, Roscoe. Maybe you can write yourself a regulation declaring yourself right.

[inquest]

I get it. It's important that we used to be able to own ships and cannons

Congratulations. You may just be able to make into high school after all.

but it's not important that we still can.

Not important to the point that was being made.

Too funny.

I suppose it's kinda funny - I suppose it's kinda sad - that you've really been having such a hard time with this.

[Mojave]

Spin on

It's important that we used to be able to own ships and cannons, but it's not important that we still can.

[crickets]

[Mojave]

Not important to the point that was being made.

What point? You guys came up empty. Again.

[tacticalogic]

It's important that we used to be able to own ships and cannons, but it's not important that we still can.

Same spin I hear about owning flintlocks from the gun grabbers. Care to put it in the context of owning a "modern warship" for the time?

[inquest]

What point?

Read the exchange yourself. Go to #2893 and follow it back. And then respond with your obligatory mindless one-liner.

You guys came up empty.

No, your brain came up empty.

[Mojave]

Care to put it in the context of owning a "modern warship" for the time?

Lemme guess - you're afraid that if you build yourself an aircraft carrier it will get seized?

[Mojave]

Go to #2893 and follow it back.

OK, you got pounded. What's your point?

[publiusF27]

Surely they had cannons. Where were they kept?

On board their privately owned warships, and in other places in private hands as well. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston, for example, was an all-volunteer artillery company. You might also look into the Battle of Concord...

---

"On the 15 of April 1775, when General Thomas Gage, British Military Governor of Massachusetts, was ordered to destroy the rebel's military stores at Concord."

"The British column then advanced to Concord, and in spreading out to destroy some cannons believed to be at Provincial Colonel Barrett's farm encountered a group of armed militia at Concord North Bridge. "

---

I'm saying that if you got your way and IF the USSC ruled on the second amendment today, they would more than likely allow machine guns, assault rifles, and 50 cals, and would more than likely order these weapons (and all others) stored in an armory.

Where does the Supreme Court get the power to say where privately owned militia weapons are to be stored?

Then why did he say, "to have them properly armed and equipped" rather than "to see if they are properly armed and equipped" if arms were not to be supplied by the government (as per Article I, Section 8, Clause 16)?

Why did he say "aimed at" instead of "provided for" if he meant provided for? And I'm still wondering where you got the idea that citizens were to be trained by the State in the use of all arms during these once or twice a year gatherings. Where did you get that?

I read, "with arms in their hands" as "with arms in their hands" not "with their own arms in their hands".

How creative of you.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense... " -John Adams, 1788, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia Constitution, June 1776

"The constitutions of most of our states [and of the United States] assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." -Thomas Jefferson

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061. Since Verdugo-Urquidez is not part of "the people," he is not protected by the Fourth Amendments (nor, apparently, by the First, Second, Ninth, or Tenth). --Chief Justice Rhenquist

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - -- Thomas Jefferson

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." -George Washington

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

Those guys said all that, and yet they meant for the Supreme Court to tell them where and how to keep their weapons?

[publiusF27]

"Hey, we used to be able to own ships and cannons!"

Guess what? We still can.

We used to be able to own STATE OF THE ART ships and cannons, which were militarily useful enough to be hired by the US government. We can still own those cannons, but only because they are not state of the art, they are antiques.

Are muzzleloading cannons classified as destructive devices? Generally, no. Muzzleloading cannons not capable of firing fixed ammunition and manufactured in or before 1898 and replicas thereof are antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the GCA or the NFA. [26 U. S. C. 5845, 27 CFR 179.11]

The government used to respect our right to own the same kinds of weaponry that was owned and used by governments. Now they graciously allow us to own some antiques, all of which are pretty useless against the kinds of weaponry owned and used by governments. But nah, nothing has really changed.

[publiusF27]

And it required the Letter of Marque to lawfully engage in combat.

No, it required a Letter of Marque to lawfully engage in combat on behalf of the United States. Private warships could and did lawfully engage in combat on the high seas, mostly against pirates.