Hatch Legislation to Overturn D.C. Gun Ban Riles Some

The Cato Institute ^ | 7/21/03 | Jonathan Block

[dr_who_2]

Someone posted on this topic last May, but this is the first I've heard of it. I'm quite fond of Cato's stands most of the time, and I'd have to believe their side of the story in this case as well. Otherwise, I'd have to believe that Orrin Hatch has a spine. On the other hand, it's hard to say what the Supreme Court is capable of.

[SteveH]

DC *bang

[basil]

I've thought about this a lot, but still can't figure out for sure what is going on. It seems to me that Hatch has a lot to lose by coming out so forcefully for the 2nd Amendment. I have the suspicion that his constituents are more or less liberals to moderates, so this could hurt him there. I keep trying to figure out what his purpose is. Did he all of a sudden get a message from God re the 2A?

Otherwise, I have no idea what any of this means.

[AdamSelene235]

I was under the impression D.C. was Federal territory like Gitmo and that Constitutional limitations on power were void in such areas.

[jdege]

It means that the NRA is terrified of having a strong IRKBA ruling on the 2nd amendment on a case that the NRA had no involvement with.

[dr_who_2]

Huh? Congress is in charge of D.C., and congress is subject to all restraints laid down by the Constitution, or at least they used to be. This only helps to drive home the point that Mr. Hatch is playing with fire.

[MonroeDNA]

This is a tough call, for sure.

On the one hand, the RTKBA is pretty clear. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled much on it since Miller, which was an anomally.

In that case, 1934, I believe, Miller had a sawed-off shotgun, and at the time, the general law of the land was that civillians could only have firearms which the military had.

The challenge was, that the military did not have sawed off shotguns.

Miller didn't show up. Ruled against.

According to that SCOTUS ruling, we could posess lots of stuff today.

The SCOTUS today is in question, for sure. Who knows.

I am a Bushbot, and will crawl over broken glass to re-elect him, but do we know for sure he will be? Even so, the lame Pubbie Senate is doing a great job not appointing judges.

Is there any doubt that the dems, in a similar position, would not have gone "nuclear?" Whipped dog syndrome.

I hate to say it, but my opinion is take it to the SCOTUS, and let the chips fall where they may. I really don't think it is going to get better.

[dr_who_2]

A good reason for all of these groups to work together, certainly.

[azcap]

His constituents are not liberals to moderates. Hatch's constituents are more conservative than he is. If he only cares about Utah, he has nothing to lose. Being pro 2nd Amendment only hurts him with the media.

[dr_who_2]

I'm not familiar with those rulings (prohibition related, I take it), but it sounds like SCOTUS has a lot of knots to disentangle.

[jim_trent]

In any case, I do not think that now is the time to be going to the Supreme Court with a 2nd Amendment case. It would have been better before Clinton appointed two justices, but it is too risky now. I don't think that either side has a good idea right now.

[AdamSelene235]

Huh? Congress is in charge of D.C., and congress is subject to all restraints laid down by the Constitution, or at least they used to be.

Article 1 Section 8: Congressional Powers

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--

[Wonder Warthog]

"I have the suspicion that his constituents are more or less liberals to moderates, so this could hurt him there."

In UTAH???? Liberals to moderates???? Utah is a RKBA/CCW state.

[dr_who_2]

Yes, what's your point? Does that mean Congress can search a DC resident's house on a whim, quarter soldiers in his house, or take away his property (including his guns) and hang his children just because they passed a law to do just that? The obvious intent of that passage is to make it clear that Congress has jurisdiction over U.S. territory outside of the several states in order to prevent the states from squabbling over territory.

[AdamSelene235]

Does that mean Congress can search a DC resident's house on a whim, quarter soldiers in his house,

Even under the Bill of Rights warrants are not required for "reasonable" searches.

Similarly, there are only two requirements to quarter troops against an home owner's will.: One a war(like now) and two, a law.

[dr_who_2]

Even under the Bill of Rights warrants are not required for "reasonable" searches.

Similarly, there are only two requirements to quarter troops against an home owner's will.: One a war(like now) and two, a law.

Are you a fishmonger or are you trying to make a point? I'm not in the mood for red herrings today.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Scout around the Internet a bit, and you'll find that Hatch is a friend of the 2nd Amendment, and has a good appreciation of its legal history and underpinnings. I'm plenty suspicious of the NRA, which seems to have been infiltrated by socialist gun-grabbers, but I'm not suspicious of Hatch -- I suspect he has some good reasoms for what he's doing, and may know a good deal more than we do about why the route he's taking may be advisable. Maybe he knows the votes aren't there to overturn the D.C. gun ban.

[dr_who_2]

One a war(like now)

Declared by Congress?

[El Gato]

I was under the impression D.C. was Federal territory like Gitmo and that Constitutional limitations on power were void in such areas.

Not hardly. D.C. is federal territory, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the United States. In D.C. there can be no question about the second amendment, or the rest of the bill of rights, only applying to Congress, since Congress has full governmental authority over DC, that is not shared with the states, or limited to the specific powers granted to Congress. The Bill of Rights are limits on exercise of whatever powers Congress has, wether in DC, or other areas not in a state. Gitmo is different in that it's not a part of the United States, but is part of Cuba, we just have rights to use it. It's really no different than any other military installation overseas, without most of the host country arrangments/limitiations.

[El Gato]

The challenge was, that the military did not have sawed off shotguns.

It was even more subtle than that. They ruled that the district court judge should not have taken "judicial notice" that such weapons were any part of the ordinary military equipment, absent any evidence being presented. The district court judge had thrown out the law (the National Firearms Act, which imposed the $200 prohibitive tax on machine guns, and a similar tax on short barreled shotguns and other weapons) The case was returned to the district court for further procedings, which could hae involved the evidence of military use for short barrelled shotguns. It's really too damn bad that Miller didn't have a Thompson, because they it would have been pretty silly to argue that it wasn't common knowledge that those were militarily usefull. Interestingly this case was important enough to the (FDR) government that the case was appealed by the government directly to the Supreme Court, not to the Court of Appeals as is the normal practice. Also this case, agains two petty ante moonshiners, was argued by the Solicitor General of the United States himself. The Court ignored most the SG's arguments presented in the written brief. As you state, not so much as a brief, let alone an oral argument, was presented for the other side.