ATF Commerce in Firearms PDF Report (The War on the 2nd Amendment in the ATF's Own Words)

ATF Report ^ | February 2000 | Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Until they outlaw gun shows and the rest of the sporting goods stores stop selling them (as has been the trend)."

If the Federal Constitution reigned supreme as you claim that it does, then all power to outlaw gun shows would rest on the Federal government, and not on the governments of the several States.

That means that under one fell swoop, the Feds could outlaw gun shows in every State under some bizarre legal pretext having to do with regulation, leaving the State governments voiceless in the process.

If the Second Amendment imposes a restriction of the Federal government and leaves the issue of regulation to the several States, then the possibility of a liberal State outlawing gun shows may be real, but the notion of 50 independent States outlawing them would be preposterous.

[Dead Corpse]

I'm arguing that the Federal government can't mess with our rights to bear arms because of the Second Amendment, and you morons call me a "Brady Buncher"...which is equating me to people who support unconstitutional gun-grabbing legislation passed by the Federal government.

No. You aren't. You are arguing that the States, a subordinate government to the FedGov, can infringe on RKBA.

So yes. That makes you a gun grabber. And stupid to boot..

[Dead Corpse]

If the Federal Constitution reigned supreme as you claim that it does

Wrong. The Constitution reigns supreme. Neither the Feds nor the States have the power to take our Rights from us.

But thanks for the laugh at your expense....

[tpaine]

Who did you P.O. ?

I'd bet we all know why the 'abuse' button was used.

I may disagree with your post, but will defend to my last electron your right to post it!

Thanks, but I'd be more happy if you guys defended the 2nd from State infringements instead.

[tpaine]

Luis lectures:

The States adopting the Federal Constitution [of the United States] were a Band of States entering into a Confederation [Union], while the Civil war turned us into Banded [confirmed we were United] States under a Federal Union [bound to a "supreme Law of the Land"].

The Banded [people of the] States distrusted the Federal [ALL] government, and set in place "restrictive clauses" they called a Bill of Rights, to avoid the power they granted to the newly-created General government [Union] from being misconstrued or abused.

It's ludicrous to argue that they went into the Constitutional Convention to set in place limitations to their own State Constitutions via the adoption of a Federal Constitution.

No luis; -- it's ludicrous to argue that they went into the Constitutional Convention to set in place limitations on a federal government, while allowing their own State governments to infringe on those same limitations on individual rights.

Dead and paine want to argue that the original intent of the Constitution should be interpreted not viewed in the light of the times that it was written, --

Hogwash. -- We both argue that the clear words of the Constitution itself [in Article VI] make it obvious that State constitutions/laws cannot contradict the "supreme Law of the Land". -- Just as it was written.

-- but according to the changed geopolitical landscape created by the Civil War. It's like they want to be strict constructionists while standing in the wrong period of time.

Nothing in the war [or the 14th] "changed" this basic principle of the US Constitution. -- States have always been "-- bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

[tpaine]

I'm arguing that the Federal government can't mess with our rights to bear arms because of the Second Amendment, and you morons call me a "Brady Buncher"...which is equating me to people who support unconstitutional gun-grabbing legislation passed by the Federal government.

'Brady Bunchers' claim that States can infringe because the 2nd does not apply to local or state governments. -- Just as you have admitted..

Then I say that the Constitution didn't need to address the issue of bearing arms for the States because the State Constitutions had already done so, and for saying that, you call me ignorant, yet, that's exactly what happened.

Some State Constitutions supposedly allow "infringements", & in fact California's supposedly allows outright prohibitions. -- You support States having such powers, admit it.

You are ignorant because you think history is what you think that it is instead of what it really was, and that the country runs other than how it runs.

That's the issue here luis; you think our RtKBA's can be infringed by local & state gov'ts because there is a "history" of that's how the "country runs".
Admit it. You support gun grabs.

You're fixated on the word "incorporation" as if this word is a bad thing.
Incorporation is what the Courts call the method that they've used to make certain that the intent of the 14th Amendment is followed by the States, without the rights retained by the States being violated. It's a method to achieve the proper implementation of the 14th Amendment.
Now, if things were as you say that they were, then with the passing of the 14th Amendment, the Constitutions of the several States would become muted on the subject of arms, --

That was exactly the intent of the 14ths framers, if you bother to read the congressional debates from 1868.

as all power would transfer to the Federal government.

Nope, all power would have remained within US Constitutional bounds. Neither Fed, State nor local gov't would have the power to infringe.

By NOT incorporating the Second Amendment, the Courts have effectively raised a wall of separation between the Feds and your guns.

Hogwash. Fed/State/local gov'ts ALL feel free to infringe, -- because the Courts refuse to honor the 2nd as written.

Additionally, if the Courts incorporate the Second, then all regulations on the subject of arms and citizens would emanate from the Federal level.

If the Courts acknowledge the Second as written, then all regulations on the subject of arms and citizens would emanate from a US Constitutional level. Gun-grabbers would then go berserk.

Maybe YOU want to place that much power on the Federal government, but I'd rather stay with the original plan as set up by the Founders, and keep the Feds out of it altogether.

Yep under your "plan", you want States like CA to have the power to prohibit ugly black rifles. -- Admit it luis.

So yes...you're both shortsighted and ignorant.

Whatever.

[MindBender26]

>Thanks, but I'd be more happy if you guys defended the 2nd from State infringements instead.

Am watching the cases in DC where a number of plaintifs are sueing the city for jsut such an infreigement. Tehy may make some headway, but until that is decided, other advances are unlikely.

Am writing a piece so some here will have an understanding of the legal problems we face.

30 Reader's Digest version follows:

"Well-regulated militia" is the most dangerous phrase for us pro-gun people.

BOR does not say; "The ability to openly criticize elected officials being necessary in a Republic, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" and "Newspapers being necessary to educate the people about the workings of the elected officials, Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press"....

Had they done so, we would certainly be free to speak out to criticize the elected officials, but would I have the right to say what I believe about my wacko neighbor who painted his house purple?

Had those reason/excuse phrases been included, certainly newspapers would have been free to report on the workings of elected officials, but could some government censor control what my local sports writer says about the idiots running the Orlando Magic?

That's the problem with "Well-Established Militia being necessary..." phrase. Had Jefferson. Madison, Monroe and the boys just guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, without any reason/excuse, there could be no arguments or decisions such as in Wilson, (SCOTUS, 1939) that got into the whole militia thing and opened the floodgates for more.

[MindBender26]

P.S., Welcome back.

If the All Mighty Administrative Moderators had any news sense, they would realize that FR has become MSM for millions, and every time they delete something that is not a perfect repetition of what the Ancient Media prints, they throw away 90% of our strength.

There are.... or were.... dozens of retired Conservative media types here and we cringe at some of the editing.

[Mojave]

...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America."

That was Noah Webster, NOT Albert Gallatin. You're batting .000.

As usual.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You can cross out the word Federal as many times as you want, but that's what they were doing.

The words "General Government" being used in reference to the Federal government aren't mine, they're Madison's.

"But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done."

Want to cross out Madison's words too t?

"It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government."

There's that pesky prase again...want to correct Madison again t?

"It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government."

Want to take five guesses as to what Madison was discussing in his speech t?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Nothing in the war [or the 14th] "changed" this basic principle of the US Constitution. -- States have always been "-- bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to the several state governments. Parts of the amendments initially proposed by Madison that would have limited state governments ("No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.") were not approved by Congress, and therefore the Bill of Rights did not appear to apply to the powers of state governments.[22]

Thus, states had established state churches up until the 1820s, and Southern states, beginning in the 1830s, could ban abolitionist literature. In the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights provided "security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government—not against those of local governments." However, in the 1925 judgment on Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been adopted in 1868, made certain applications of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The Supreme Court then cited the Gitlow case as precedent for a series of decisions that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation.

You're abysmally ignorant.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You are arguing that the States, a subordinate government to the FedGov."

What unbelievable ignorance you display.

The States CREATED the Federal government, the States MAKE UP the Federal government.

The States elect the members of Congress and the States elect the President.

You're an embarrasement to this forum.

[tpaine]

Mindbender:

That's the problem with "Well-Established Militia being necessary..." phrase. Had Jefferson. Madison, Monroe and the boys just guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, without any reason/excuse, --


______________________________________



Using the 'Militia phrase' to justify unreasonable fed/state/local restrictions on an individuals right to arms simply ignores the entire thrust of our Constitution, -- to protect life, liberty or property, using due process.


Prof. Eugene Volokh puts it well here:

The Commonplace Second Amendment
Address:http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm




"--- a right of the people to bear arms (or to keep and bear arms) is present in the pre-1791 constitutions of four states; because this right against the state government can't be at the sufferance of the state, "the right of the people to bear arms" seems to have meant a right to have arms even without state authorization. 

The Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont provisions guaranteeing the right of the people to bear arms in "defense of themselves and the State" likewise suggest that "bearing arms" meant more than just bearing them under state control.  What's more, under the Militia Clauses, the federal government could at any time take direct command of the militia away from the states.
  If the right was only a right to possess arms under the supervision of one's militia superiors -- who might well be under federal command -- then the right would impose little constraint on the federal government.


              Referring to the lessons learned from the other constitutional provisions won't turn interpreting the Second Amendment into a mechanical process; no interpretive theory can promise this.  But the other provisions do show that it's possible to interpret an operative clause in light of a justification clause without reading either out of the constitutional text, and without incorrectly insisting on each being coextensive with the other.

Conclusion

              For better or worse, interpreting legal texts is a mushy business.  Lawyers who support a particular result on policy grounds can often come up with an interpretation that reaches this result, and even persuade themselves that it's the best interpretation.
              At the same time, I write from the premise that interpreting a text is not the same enterprise as reading the text to achieve whatever policy result one prefers.  Legal texts should to some extent constrain their interpreters, and interpreters should try to subordinate their policy views (even if they cannot ignore them entirely) to the inquiry into what the text says.  Sometimes, the interpreter must say, "Too bad, the best reading of the text is one that produces a result I dislike, but I guess I'm stuck with it."  Interpretation means sometimes having to say you're sorry.

              One way of testing one's interpretive approach -- of distinguishing honest interpretation from mere inscription of one's own policy preferences on the text -- is applying it to a wide array of texts of different political valences.  It's easy enough to craft an interpretive trick that reaches the result one wants in the case for which it was crafted.  But when one tests it against other provisions, one sees more clearly whether it's a sound interpretive method.

              My modest discovery is that the Second Amendment belongs to a large family of similarly structured constitutional provisions:  They command a certain thing while at the same time explaining their reasons.  Because some of the provisions appeal to liberals and some to conservatives, they offer a natural test suite for any proposed interpretation of the Second Amendment.  If the interpretive method makes sense with all the provisions, that's a point in its favor.  But if it reaches the result that some may favor for the Second Amendment only by reaching patently unsound results for the other provisions, we should suspect that the method is flawed. --"

[tpaine]

Luis; -- it's ludicrous to argue that the founders went into the Constitutional Convention to set in place limitations on a federal government, while allowing their own State governments to infringe on those same limitations on protecting individual rights.

Dead and paine want to argue that the original intent of the Constitution should be interpreted not viewed in the light of the times that it was written, --

Hogwash. -- We both argue that the clear words of the Constitution itself [in Article VI] make it obvious that State constitutions/laws cannot contradict the "supreme Law of the Land". -- Just as it was written.

-- but according to the changed geopolitical landscape created by the Civil War. It's like they want to be strict constructionists while standing in the wrong period of time.

Nothing in the war [or the 14th] "changed" this basic principle of the US Constitution. -- States have always been "-- bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

The words "General Government" being used in reference to the Federal government aren't mine, they're Madison's.

"-- But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done. --"

Want to cross out Madison's words too t?

Why would I luis? -- Nothing he is writing implies that State or local gov't has a power to ignore our Law of the Land.
In fact, just below he 'boldly' says States do not have such powers:

"-- It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government."

There's that pesky prase again...want to correct Madison again t?

Again, why would I 'correct' words that make my point? -- Are you daft?

"It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments.
I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government."

Want to take five guesses as to what Madison was discussing in his speech t?

No 'guessing' needed luis. He is discussing restraining both Fed & " State Governments from exercising this power, [the power to write "improper laws"] there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government." [from the power to write "improper laws"]

Typically luis, -- in your inability to understand Madison, you've shot your own foot; -- its quite amusing.

[Mojave]

The States CREATED the Federal government

You're wasting your keystrokes. They're infatuated with their dream of centralized government and judge made law. Facts mean nothing to them.

[Dead Corpse]

The quote is sourced troll.

[Dead Corpse]

The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government."

Let's see, we put restraints on State governments, we then transferred some of those to a more centralized government to put them off limits to ANYONE in government.

Why is this hard to understand?

[Dead Corpse]

What unbelievable ignorance you display.

Yes. You do. The Constitution clearly state that "We the People" created the government. Specifically, that since the Confederacy wasn't working so good, we needed something better. Like a Republic that respected the Rights of all US citizens, had specific power limits, and could be modified through a set process.

Got that "incorporation" quote yet?

[Mojave]

The quote is sourced troll.

Not to Gallatin.

Poor old squirmy.

[Dead Corpse]

Not to Gallatin.

Never said it was your slanderous piece of filth.