Posted on 06/02/2004 12:44:36 PM PDT by neverdem
I think I see what you're getting at - if unincorporated, the feds will lay off and leave it to the states. I still think it's better if it's incorporated. It gives us more tools to use to defeat gun legislation.
You are probably right, I looked at the case real quick just to find the context for Thomas' quote.
The exact same way as a ban on drugs or a ban on wheat, or a ban on child labor, aine.
BTTT
"I still think it's better if it's incorporated. It gives us more tools to use to defeat gun legislation."
If incorporated, just keep in mind that Congress and the USSC will be bound only by the wording of the second amendment, ambiguous as it is. They may decide that "bear arms" does not include concealed carry. That "keep arms' means in a public armory. That "arms" means a muzzle-loading rifle only. Or even that the second amendment only protects a "collective right" of the militia. ALL states are then bound by those decisions.
I like the state constitutions that read (like Maine): "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned". No confusion, no misinterpretation, and it's highly unlikely that the citizens of that state would allow their legislature to go against it.
Under the Commerce Clause?
Yes.
And that was also the opinion of a federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And the USSC let that opinion stand "without comment". Do you see something in the Commerce Clause that I don't? Some exception? Does it say, "Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce ... among the several States with the exception of guns, drugs, pornography, and whatever we feel they shouldn't?
How does a ban on owning an 'assault weapon' serve to regulate commerce "among the several states" , paulsen?
The exact same way as a ban on drugs or a ban on wheat, or a ban on child labor, ---
According to you, drugs are dangerous, & thus can be 'banned', overproduction of wheat can ruin our economy, thus be banned, and child labor banned as a criminal act, -- all under the power to regulate commerce?
What is dangerous, can ruin our economy, or criminal in merely owning an 'assault' type weapon?
Well, if they must rewrite it..Muttly wouldn't mind if they just changed the Original to ALL CAPS.
"--- just keep in mind that Congress and the USSC will be bound only by the wording of the second amendment, ambiguous as it is."
Typical of the closet anti-gun crusader, -- insist that the clear words of the 2nd are "ambiguous".
You 'out' yourself once again paulsen.
Geez. Look it up yourself. The reasons are given in the legislation.
Under the Commerce Clause? Yes.
Now you're saying that under the Commerce Clause, the Federal government can ban assault weapons. But, in the the following exchange you say different:
tacticalogic wrote: I'll be happy to withdraw the question if you can explain why Commerce Clause legislation must comply with the Fifth Amendment, but not the Second.
robertpaulsen responded: No, it has to comply with the second.
I ask again, how can you say the Constitution does not allow the Federal government to infringe the RKBA, but at the same time, the Constitution allows the Federal government to infringe the RKBA?
Do you see something in the Commerce Clause that I don't? Some exception?
It is robertpaulsen who sees in the Commerce Clause the authority to infringe the RKBA.
robertpaulsen also says the Second Amendment means the RKBA shall not be infringed by the Federal government.
Which is it?
I think I see what you're getting at - if unincorporated, the feds will lay off and leave it to the states. I still think it's better if it's incorporated. It gives us more tools to use to defeat gun legislation.
Agreed, but my question had more to do with Federal power under the Constitution to enact and enforce Federal gun laws.
Let's say the Feds passed a law that banned concealed carry of firearms in the US.
Would the incorporation status of Second Amendment affect the Feds authority to enforce that law within a State?
Under the Commerce Clause?
Yes.
And that was also the opinion of a federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And the USSC let that opinion stand "without comment". Do you see something in the Commerce Clause that I don't? Some exception? Does it say, "Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce ... among the several States with the exception of guns, drugs, pornography, and whatever we feel they shouldn't?
How does a ban on owning an 'assault weapon' serve to regulate commerce "among the several states" , paulsen?
The exact same way as a ban on drugs or a ban on wheat, or a ban on child labor, ---
According to you, drugs are dangerous, & thus can be 'banned', overproduction of wheat can ruin our enonomy, thus be banned, and child labor banned as a criminal act, -- all under the power to regulate commerce?
What is dangerous, can ruin our economy, or criminal in merely owning an 'assault' type weapon?
Geez. Look it up yourself. The reasons are given in the legislation.
Wrong again paulsen. -- Constitutional reasoning is NOT given in such 'legislation'. As you well know.
In any case, -- why do YOU defend violating our right to own assault weapons?
You asked if Congress can ban weapons under the Commerce Clause. I said yes. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said yes. The USSC let it stand, "without comment". WTF don't you understand?
Now you bring up the second amendment. What does that have to do with the above? Why don't you just go ahead and bring up the fifth? The ninth? The tenth, while you're at it?
They can, and did, ban weapons under the Commerce Clause. That doesn't mean they could have constitutionally done it under the second amendment (or any other amendment), which was tacticalogic's question.
You're mixing apples and oranges, here. I'm done.
This has been going on for a couple of days now, with no resolution in sight. At some point you have to consider the possibility that it might be a case of making contradictory statements purely for the purpose of stirring you up and getting you to waste your time trying to get an explaination.
It is not magic thinking. The law professors, who are refugee lawyers from the real world, teach the anti-individual rights left dogma of the 2nd amendment. The 9th is consistent with their socialist professors.
If you think universities are the last bastion of communism, then law schools are the last bastion of the commie elite inteligencia.
Perhaps we need common sense law school control. Make some of these law professors work for a living. Regulate the number of law schools permitted in a state.
Under the commerce clause or the Second Amendment?
No, I did not ask if Congress can ban weapons under the Commerce Clause. I asked if you, robertpaulsen, believe the words of the Commerce Clause mean that Congress can ban weapons. Here's the quote:
In your opinion, based on how you understand the meaning of the actual words of the Commerce Clause, does Congress have the constitutional authority to ban assault weapons under the Commerce Clause.
I was not asking how the Court has ruled or what Congress has said or done. It is a question about what robertpaulsen thinks the words of the Constitution mean.
Same thing with the Second Amendment. I am not asking what the Courts or Congress said. We all know what they said.
I am asking what you, robertpaulsen, think the words of the Second Amendment mean.
You, robertpaulsen, independent of what the Court or Congress says, believe the words of the Second Amendment mean that the RKBA shall not be infringed by the Federal government, correct?
So I ask again, do you, robertpaulsen, believe the words of the Commerce Clause allow the Federal government to infringe the RKBA such as the assault weapon ban? Not the Court, not Congress, I'm asking for robertpaulsen's understanding of the words of the Commerce Clause with respect to the RKBA.
They can, and did, ban weapons under the Commerce Clause.
Correct. Does robertpaulsen (not the Courts, not Congress) believe this is a Second Amendment violation?
I think you are a little too optimistic when you say "if unincorporated, the feds must lay off and leave it to the states." You know that the feds will still try and get their gun control legislation to pass strict scrutiny. Heck, the First Amendment sure didn't stop the feds from passing CFR.
I con't see how it would. The incorporation status would only affect whether state and federal, or just federal laws would be subjected to strict scrutiny.
That possibility has crossed my mind:)
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.