Posted on 09/04/2003 4:40:35 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two gunmakers who challenged Congress' authority to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons lost a Supreme Court appeal Monday.
The court, without comment, rejected an appeal that said Congress exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce when it outlawed such weapons in 1994.
The 1994 law, an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, defines semiautomatic assault weapons to include a list of specified firearms and ``copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber.''
Navegar Inc. and Penn Arms Inc. challenged the federal ban in 1995.
Florida-based Navegar, doing business as Intratec, manufactures two semiautomatic pistols, the TEC-DC9 and TEC-22, which are among the specifically banned weapons.
Pennsylvania-based Penn Arms makes the Strike 12, a 12-gauge revolving cylinder shotgun. All such shotguns are treated as semiautomatic assault weapons under the 1994 law.
A federal trial judge and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the ban. In its ruling last year, the appeals court called the law a permissible ``regulation of activities having a substantial effect on interstate commerce.''
The appeals court cited Congress' ``intent to control the flow through interstate commerce of semiautomatic assault weapons bought or manufactured in one state and subsequently transported into other states.''
In the appeal acted on Monday, the gunmakers argued that the appeals court ruling conflicts with recent Supreme Court decisions that pared congressional power by narrowing the definition of interstate commerce.
In one, the Supreme Court said Congress exceeded its authority in banning possession of guns within 1,000 feet of schools. In another, the court struck down a key provision of the Violence Against Women Act.
The gunmakers' appeal said the appeals court wrongly presumed that ``the manufacture and transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons was for a national market.''
They said the appeals court ``had no basis for concluding ... that the intrastate manufacture, transfer or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.''
Justice Department lawyers urged the court to reject the appeal. ``Federal regulation of firearms and assault weapons is based in large part on evidence that the nationwide market for firearms renders purely local prohibitions ineffective,'' they said.
The case is Navegar v. U.S., 99-1874.
This is exactly the point. Congress and the courts are using the same excuse to trample the 10th amendment on drugs and on every other issue they want to Unconstitutionally take from the states. Here's Justice Thomas commentary on this problem:
In his lone concurrence in United States v. Morrison (2000 U.S. LEXIS 3422 [May 15, 2000]), he wrote: I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a "substantial effects" test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress' powers and with this Court's early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.
Here's a case where the allegedly pro-gun Republicans decline to support gun rights. Also, the notion that national prohibitions might work because local ones are ineffective is doubly flawed. First, drug prohibition is national - and a dismal failure. Second, whether guns are prohibited locally or nationally, the Second Amendment forbids this prohibition. Some people claim that "only the federal hand is stayed by the Second Amendment" - in which case only local prohibitions would possibly be legal. Of course, others claim the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth, so that even local prohibitions are also illegal.
IMO, this is a direct violation of the second amendment.
No different than if congress attempted to limit speech by using the commerce clause to ban ink. You may call it an abuse of the commerce clause, but that would be abridging the freedom of speech.
OTOH, drugs have no such amendment protections.
Law-abiding? LAW-ABIDING?
That's just a term of art. You, me or anybody else can be made a felon in the blink of an eye by the simple stroke of a politician's pen.
The Second Amendment doesn't say:
One of the natural law justifications underlying the Second Amendment is the right of self-defense; and just because somebody has a criminal record doesn't mean that his right to defend himself is null and void.
I think that the commission of criminal acts with firearms (and not mere firearms possession) should be the only basis on which any firearms-related prosecution should EVER be based.
The only way that a proscription on the possession of arms can be justified is if the assumption is made that one will do something criminal with them in the future- and the last time I checked, Miss Clio wasn't working for the ATF.
By this cockeyed reasoning the fact that we possess firearms makes all Future Felons of America and presto-chango, don't watch the rights as they disappear- we therefore can be justifiably disarmed.
I'm old enough to remember the concept of what used to be called an "ex-felon".
The latter was the explicitly stated intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment. Various courts (most notably in the Slaughterhouse cases) slaughtered the English language to weasel around the amendment.
Basically, it was a political decision -- the Feds simply gave up on trying to make the defeated rebels treat freedmen as equal citizens as part of the bargain for accepting the heist of the 1876 election, and the courts went along.
Should a convicted felon who has served his time be allowed to vote? Can he vote while in prison? Some would argue that this is more important to freedom and liberty than the right to bear arms.
Can the mentally ill own guns? Would you sell one of your guns to a mentally ill person? Would you sell one of your guns to your next door neighbor who just got out of prison for beating his wife with a baseball bat?
If a convicted child molester or rapist has served his time, should we require them to publicly register their whereabouts?
I ask these questions because it's been said that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. I believe that reasonable restrictions can be made.
That said, I also think that it's reasonable, after a given period of time, for a non-violent felon (say a white collar embezzler) to petition for reinstatement of his second amendment RKBA.
The Constitution doesn't say anything about the right to vote not being infringed. As for RKBA, it does.
And "not be infringed means exactly that. NOT BE INFRINGED.
Why is it that people have such a problem with plain English?
Can the mentally ill own guns?
I'm sure lots do. A subset of these have badges, too. Fortunately they make up a very tiny minority of the badge-carrying population.
The concept of sanity is derived from a consensus among psychiatrists which results in entries or deletions in the current version of the DSM. The consensus as to what constitutes sanity is not necessarily unanimous.
Would you sell one of your guns to a mentally ill person?
I'm not in the business of selling firearms- like Warren Buffett I buy and hold (unless I'm trading up)-- however (sigh) I will respond:
Not knowingly, but there are a lot of very twisted people out there who, most of the time, from all external appearances, seem perfectly normal.
In order to make it possible for NICS to block such sales (only to the formally diagnosed, mind you!) a substantial degradation of medical privacy is required which affects everybody, not just gunowners and prospective purchasers.
Would you sell one of your guns to your next door neighbor who just got out of prison for beating his wife with a baseball bat?
Of course not.
It's been a while, but I've lived in neighborhoods where guys like this were dealt with, er, external to the formal judicial process.
If a convicted child molester or rapist has served his time, should we require them to publicly register their whereabouts?
State issue.
WTH does that have to do with the Second Amendment?
I ask these questions because it's been said that the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. I believe that reasonable restrictions can be made.
That said, I also think that it's reasonable, after a given period of time, for a non-violent felon (say a white collar embezzler) to petition for reinstatement of his second amendment RKBA.
Okay, I'll point you to a pretty good article on what we're discussing:
CAN A “RIGHT” BE MODERATED IN the INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY?
Regards, GS
Go back and read #16 again until ya get it right.
I'm on YOUR side. My point is that I DO understand the 2nd amendment and the "Supremes" do not!
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.