High court to look at ban on handguns

McClatchy-Tribune ^ | Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM | MICHAEL DOYLE

[ctdonath2]

I'm not talking about soldiers. I'm talking about members of a well regulated state militia.

So far your explainations have resulted in a distinction without a difference. Both are agents of the state, selected by the state, using state equipment, carrying out state orders.

[Mojave]

It seems that federal bureaucrats think of ordinary citizens as street criminals.

[Mojave]

So far your explainations have resulted in a distinction without a difference.

There's no difference between state governments and the federal government?

Anarchist tripe.

[Mojave]

The sky is just like a navigable river

Cite, please.

[publiusF27]

BUT, I'm saying the second amendment doesn't do that today. Futhermore, even if the Heller court rules it an individual right for every citizen, that still won't put an M-16 in every household.

It's a step along the way. Do you see any potential benefits to having the SC hear the Heller case?

[publiusF27]

That was an opinion on the nature of flight, not a legal opinion about what courts have said. As a flight instructor, I found my job much, much easier if the student was already into boating.

I don’t know much of anything about aviation case law, and whether they have looked to the substantial effects and aggregation principles to justify federal regulation. I’m just saying they wouldn’t have to look so far to satisfy me. The air is like a river. It’s a channel of commerce, and can be subject to federal regulation.

[publiusF27]

Just a ping to point out that my post 1046 is in response to this as well as in response to Mojave.

[tacticalogic]

That’s how you’ve chosen to characterize the members of the militia.

[Mojave]

That was an opinion on the nature of flight, not a legal opinion about what courts have said.

So any legal comparison to navigable water in the Constitution is meritless.

[Mojave]

That’s how you’ve chosen to characterize the members of the militia.

Are they members of the militia or aren't they?

[crickets]

[cbkaty]

[robertpaulsen]

"Do you see any potential benefits to having the SC hear the Heller case?"

Only the one I mentioned: If they find that the second amendment protects an individual right and they don't incorporate.

Since that decision only affects DC residents and still allows the federal government to regulate their weapons and require registration, it's a very small benefit.

Nowhere near what there is to lose.

Do you see it any differently?

[tacticalogic]

We’re having a discussion on the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, and the how it applies to the militia. Your contribution to that discussion is going to be to present images and snarky comments to paint the militia in the most negative, prejudicial and detrimental way possible. Carry on.

[publiusF27]

So any legal comparison to navigable water in the Constitution is meritless.

Cite, please?

[robertpaulsen]

"Both are agents of the state, selected by the state, using state equipment, carrying out state orders."

Your choice of words is inflammatory and you know it. You phrased it that way to get a reaction and you know it.

That makes you a troll. And I told you I'm not going to play your game.

[publiusF27]

I do see it differently. I think a favorable ruling could spark challenges to quite a few federal gun control laws, and some could succeed. Could 922 (o) survive a “strict scrutiny” test? How about a renewed “assault” weapons ban?

[tacticalogic]

Your choice of words is inflammatory

Apparently being an "agent of the state" is not a good thing.

[Mojave]

Cite, please?

You already admitted that you had none. Nothing equals nothing.

[Mojave]

Are they members of the militia by your definition?

Simple question.

[crickets]

[publiusF27]

OK, I'll try to bring this little sidetrack back to guns.

In the Lopez decision, Rhenquist wrote:

Consistent with this structure, we have identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power. Perez v. United States, supra, at 150; see also Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., supra, at 276-277. First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce. See, e.g., Darby, 312 U. S., at 114; Heart of Atlanta Motel, supra, at 256 (" `[T]he authority of Congress to keep the channels of interstate commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.' " (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 491 (1917)). Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities. See, e.g., Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S. 342 (1914); Southern R. Co. v. United States, 222 U.S. 20 (1911) (upholding amendments to Safety Appliance Act as applied to vehicles used in intrastate commerce); Perez, supra, at 150 ("[F]or example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 32), or . . . thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. § 659)"). Finally, Congress' commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce

I'm never quite sure what Mojave is saying, but RP, you seem to be suggesting that neither of the first two categories of activity would allow the feds to regulate aviation, and they must resort to the third category. I don't think they need to do that. I think either of the first two applies to airplanes. Do either of you disagree?