My first thought exactly. He reminds me of Chester that hangs around the bulldog, Spike.
"Whaddya think, Spike? The states can't prohibit guns, can they, Spike? Can they, huh? Can they, huh? Whaddya say, Spike?"
Posted on 11/03/2005 2:24:08 PM PST by 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.
Good morning, Yappy.
How sappy.
If that was an answer, then the answer was "No, I won't.".
My first thought exactly. He reminds me of Chester that hangs around the bulldog, Spike.
"Whaddya think, Spike? The states can't prohibit guns, can they, Spike? Can they, huh? Can they, huh? Whaddya say, Spike?"
How droll that you see yourself as "Spike"..
Seriously paulsen, how old are you?
All the personal information I want you to have can be found on my profile page.
Depends on the state constitution. What's clear, though, is that when the federal government mandates such rules for states, it does not pass the constitutional test.
It's not the federal government mandating such rules to the the states as much as it is the USSC interpreting those rules.
The public panics. Congress passes a law saying the MG's must be "safely stored". Some states store them in an armory. The USSC rules such storage constitutional.
OK?
There's the unconstitutional part. There's nothing in the Constitution (even the currently expanded version of the commerce clause wouldn't fly here) that gives Congress this kind of power.
If states want to respond to public panic by mandating "safe storage", that's another question. But Congress has definitely not been given that power.
How is this different than trigger locks mandated by the federal government? How is this different than federally mandated background checks?
Now, you come back with "they're also unconstitutional", we're done on this thread.
Background checks at least are a "regulation of commerce" (so what if it's not interstate; that part seems to have been forgotten about long ago). Even trigger locks can vaguely be thought of as a commerce regulation, on the grounds that someone might hypothetically sell the thing without a trigger lock (specious reasoning, I know, but that's what we've come to expect from the court's "interpretation" of the commerce clause).
But rules mandating how you store your weapons have nothing to do with commerce. They fall in the same category as the "law" that was struck down in Lopez.
-- a court saying a machine gun, used only in conjunction with a militia, must be properly stored is unconstitutional?
All I'm saying is be careful what you wish for.
The USSC rules on the second amnendment. The USSC finds that machine guns are constitutional as part of a militia.
The public panics. Congress passes a law saying the MG's must be "safely stored". Some states store them in an armory. The USSC rules such storage constitutional.
OK?
No paulsen, its not "OK" that Congress can pass a law saying that "MG's must be "safely stored". That's an obvious infringement on our right to "keep" arms.
How is this different than trigger locks mandated by the federal government? How is this different than federally mandated background checks?
Such regulative infringements are bad enough, but they not outright prohibitive infringements on 'keeping & bearing'..
Now, you come back with "they're also unconstitutional", we're done on this thread.
You've been 'done' on this thread for hundreds of posts now.
Your specious & petty objections to our inalienable rights to arms continue to make that fact evident.
But hey.. -- Feel free to abandon your untenable position.
The weapons are militia-related. It would be illegal to keep and bear these arms for any other purpose.
In Silveira v. Lockyer the 9th Circuit Court stated, "The historical record makes it equally plain that the (second-rp) amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."
ANY weapon stored at home would be illegal, since individuals could only keep and bear arms as part of a militia. You tell me where they should be stored if you don't want them in a state armory.
And under what authority would Congress be able to pass such a law, and why would that not have justified the law that was struck down in Lopez? After all, schools aren't militia centers.
The USSC rules on the second amnendment. The USSC finds that machine guns are constitutional as part of a militia.
The public panics.
Congress passes a law saying the MG's must be "safely stored". Some states store them in an armory. The USSC rules such storage constitutional.
OK?
No paulsen, its not "OK" that Congress can pass a law saying that "MG's must be "safely stored". That's an obvious infringement on our right to "keep" arms.
How is this different than trigger locks mandated by the federal government? How is this different than federally mandated background checks?
Such regulative infringements are bad enough, but they not outright prohibitive infringements on 'keeping & bearing'..
The weapons are militia-related. It would be illegal to keep and bear these arms for any other purpose.
In Silveira v. Lockyer the 9th Circuit Court stated, "The historical record makes it equally plain that the (second-rp) amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."
Now you've gone beyond 'supposition', to actually arguing in opposition to our individual right to keep & bear arms. Thank you for finally outing yourself as a 9th Circuit supporter.
ANY weapon stored at home would be illegal, since individuals could only keep and bear arms as part of a militia.
So you & the brady bunch claim, unsupported by any Constitutional evidence other than "-- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, --"
You tell me where they should be stored if you don't want them in a state armory.
The peoples right to keep arms [wherever-da] shall not be infringed. OK?
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.