Posted on 05/24/2008 6:21:22 AM PDT by marktwain
Once yes, but no longer. In fact we deny gun possession to ex-felons let out of prison (I think this is only since 1968, just 40 years ago, and will note that it matters not the crime -- not that anybody on FR will think this a bad thing) and people who live in the "wrong" locales. And in order to buy a gun one has to jump through ever-increasing hoops.
Do nothing, and it's only a matter of time.
Just look at the silliness going on today... can you really remain all warm & fuzzy about your rights?
That has not stopped the feds from passing laws that make possession of a gun by someone who committed an act of domestic violence, but it should not hold up to a Supreme Court test.
Most States have laws prohibiting possession by felons, however.
bump
Interesting. Out of curiousity, are there any that don't?
A working hypothesis, however, is that many of the laws were passed because of BATF lobbying efforts. Most prosecutions are under State law, and that shields the federal law from Constitutional challenges. I have had a number of people tell me of the BATF lobbying State Legislatures to pass gun laws in their States.
Ah. It might not be from simple “lobbying” efforts, though. In this state I’ve seen a number of bills over the years filed in an attempt to preserve grants being received from the feds — under threat of having those grants reduced if federally-desired laws aren’t passed.
You are absolutely correct. Many State laws are passed under “duress” from the feds. It is an excellent reason to do away with all “revenue sharing” from the feds to the states.
Agreed, but not likely to happen anytime soon.
Do you know where the sole primary source is that breeds gun control?
Looked it up. Interesting.
I have not read the actual case. Does it bring forward the issue of Lopez ruling that mere possession is not interstate commerce? I know that it deals with the ex post facto issue.
Per the Thirteenth Amendment, I would suggest that states have the right to impose almost any restriction whatsoever on convicted felons as part of sentencing. That does not imply the right to change such restrictions retroactively.
Per the "Full Faith and Credit Clause", the federal government would be authorized to pass measures to make one state's prohibition against a convicted felon's acquisition of arms applicable in other states, if it could do so without interfering with law abiding persons' right to keep and bear arms. I'm not sure exactly what form such a law would take, but it could, for example, provide that no person shall supply arms to anyone wearing some particular style of anklet. States could then require convicted felons to wear tracking anklets for the duration of the prohibition on bearing arms.
Note that such a federal law would not be restricted to interstate sales (since it would be based upon FF&C rather than Interstate Commerce), but would only be applicable in situations where disarmament was an explicit part of sentencing. Further, its legitimacy would be predicated upon the fact that observing whether a person is wearing an anklet does not take any significant time or impose any expense, nor does it provide the government with information to which it is not entitled. Other measures like background checks etc. impose hassles and expense, and give the government information to which it is not entitled, and thus are not legitimate.
I, for one, think it is a VERY bad thing. The entire federal gun registration scheme rests on the fiction that the system can disarm freed felons. If I was on the Supreme Court, this law would be struck down as unConstitutional along with any requirement that a firearm have a serial number. We don't do it with books and we shouldn't do it with firearms.
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.