Golden Valley [AZ] man accused in machine gun conspiracy (illegal NFA mfg)

-- Arizona did that--with their passage of the Firearms Freedom Act to allow manufacturing of firearms, including full auto NFA weapons, within their state if sold only to customers within the state of Arizona. --

So did Montana, but both efforts are showboating by the state politicians, because the federal courts have already ruled that in-state manufacture is not the test for illegality under federal law.

The Stewart case is on point. The firearm that Stewart had was homemade, never left his house. SCOTUS order the 9th Circuit to uphold the federal firearms conviction against Stewart, using the rational of Raich. The existence of the forbidden object in civilian hands affects interstate commerce.

Someone can be mostly rational but still have irrational views. Pointing out a irrationality to an otherwise rational person is the best way for them to see the obvious flaw in their thinking. How does your theory work that pointing out the irrational quality of an argument gives "ammunition" to the other side?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I've pointed out that "collective rights" is a concept at odds with individual liberty. The 2nd amendment is clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" any argument that claims that it doesn't mean exactly this, is irrational at best. Typically arguments against the plain meaning of the 2nd amendment are based on deception.

Do you believe that the second amendment means that the government can not infringe on the people right to keep and bear arms?

A well sharpened pencil being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well organized filing cabinet being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well oiled machine being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well bandaged exit wound being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A prefatory clause is not a modifier. It just gives a "reason for what follows". Not the only reason and not a condition to be met before the next phrase could be construed as true.

Yes, Socialists (liberals, gun-haters, or whatever other name indicating their true nature) have tried to use the Militia clause before. It's stupid to play into their arguments out of either fear or political expediency.

We're right, they are wrong. It really is that black and white.

FWIW, the collective rights arguments are based on a number of fallacies. Most of the collective rights proponents are under the mistaken belief that "militia" is something like a state or national guard unit. Comes as a surprise that "militia" is that body of the public that is physically capable of bearing arms. There is no "civilian/non-civilian" distinction, nor any sort of "authorized [by the state] to bear arms" limiting factor.

I accept that other people have the opinion that the collective rights theory is correct, but I also find those people intellectually dishonest. If their mind ain't straight, they ought not be trusted. I won't trust them, personally, with anything I care about. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, but I won't give an intellectually dishonest person my respect.

In the real world, certain firearms (such as a 105mm howitzer) by certain people (those out on bond, etc) yes. The potential destructive power of modern weapons such as a howitzer or M60 create real world problems even the most intelligent and astute founding fathers could not have foreseen

That is not unusual or restricted to firearms. For example, what constitutional guarantee do we have of freedom of the news on TV and radio. We have constitutional guarantees of freedom of Th's PRESS but t
Tv doesn't use presses..... Nor do we on FR The courts have changed the meaning of “press” to mean all media.

Regarding the “who” issues, I believe certain people, criminals included, give up certain rights (voting, firearms possession, etc) long after any jail sentence has run it's course.

I realize that is not the absolutist Position many here advocate, but it is my personal belief.

The potential destructive power of modern weapons such as a howitzer or M60 create real world problems even the most intelligent and astute founding fathers could not have foreseen

Leftist talking point. Or are you seriously saying that the FF's, whose ships sprouted ranks of CANNONS couldn't have foreseen larger weapons? We used Coehorn mortars, 16lbs Howitzers, and a variety of other field artillery in our War for Independence. To say they couldn't have envisioned field artillery in the hands of private citizens is either a stunning display of wanton ignorance or an outright lie.

I realize that is not the absolutist Position many here advocate, but it is my personal belief.

Well, it certainly isn't a "Constitutional" or "conservative" belief... You got that part right.

In the time of the founders individuals owned personal warships that far exceeded the damage capability of an M60 machine gun or a single howitzer. If you wish to change the constitution be honest enough to make the argument to change the constitution the only way it can legitimately be changed, not through judicial fiat because "the founders couldn't have foreseen blah blah blah"

The term "press" in freedom of the press was a colloquialism that described individuals that distributed the news. It included individuals that hand printed broadsheets and those that used printing presses. It does not mean a physical printing press. Nor does it only mean those that use a physical printing press. The term "press" in the constitution literally meant all known media distribution methods and it means the same thing today.

The constitution is not dependent on any ones opinion or personal belief. It means what it says and only what it says. Without the constitution as the foundation for our civil society, it is only a matter of time before we have a tyranny. The founders lived through a tyranny and fought against it. Against all odds they won. They created a government, via the constitution, that was ruled by the people. That was restrained by limited powers from imposing tyranny.

Today we have people that argue against the constitution such as yourself. I don't know what your motives are and they aren't important. I know what ignoring the constitution leads to and tyranny is a far greater evil than all the hypothetical bogey men you use to lend credence to your argument.

You write a learned responses, but there are still questions

You say there is no need for any individual’s opinion about what the constitution means, that It means what it says and only what it says

But then you want us to base decisions on your opinion that the word “press” means not just physical printing presses, or the organized media using them, but the entire news system. formal and otherwise. (I agree with your interpretation)

The FFs could have said “freedom of the news” but they did not. So we are depending on our opinion of what they meant.

Every item requires interpretation of what it means In our system, we give that duty to the courts.

No...it doesn't depend on my opinion or on what anyone's opinion means. The operative phrase here is "the press". The constitution cannot be referring to a printing press as inanimate object cannot have rights. The are referring to people but they didn't say freedom of people to distribute their speech as long as it's printed on a printing press. There are many historical references to the term and what it meant in historical context, and further one needs to bit dense not to understand what it means in the first place. A reasonable person could not read

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and come to the conclusion that it was referring to printing presses. It refers to people and freedom of speech. The method of speech is not mentioned.

This does not require interpretation by the court. It means exactly what it says, otherwise you have a judiciary that can change the constitution at will. If the constitution can be changed by judicial fiat then in effect we do not have a constitution and without a constitution the judiciary has no legitimate authority.

-- I believe certain people, criminals included, give up certain rights (voting, firearms possession, etc) long after any jail sentence has run it's course. --

That's generally correct as a statement of the condition of the law, but not totally correct. Many states fairly easily rehabilitate convicts as to voting; and all also have means to rehabilitate as to keeping and bearing arms.

However, you, being well versed in the law (and I am too, FWIW), may know the history. The first I know of, of a felon being perpetually deprived of the right to keep and bear arms is in law less than 80 years old. From time to time, I've looked for the "longstanding" prohibition on felons who have served their time, from keeping and bearing arms. I come up blank. I believe Clayton Cramer has researched this as well.

Anyway, the modern authority for your proposition is clear enough, but I wonder if you know the history of this - or is "longstanding prohibition" another example of the courts making things up?

-- The potential destructive power of modern weapons such as a howitzer or M60 create real world problems even the most intelligent and astute founding fathers could not have foreseen --

Not so. See canon. If muzzle-loaded, still legal for unregulated private ownership. Same for sawed off shotgun, see blunderbuss.

They likely did not foresee the mayhem possibilities associated with gasoline.

-- It means exactly what it says, otherwise you have a judiciary that can change the constitution at will. --

The rebuttal to that is easy. We have a form of government where the judiciary can change the constitution at will. Not by literally changing the words in the constitution, but by changing what they mean and how they will be applied to the public, by force of violence up to death, if that is what it takes.

The legitimacy of the judiciary is measured by its ability to obtain coercive power from the other branches. If Congress wants a certain species of guns removed from civilian ownership, and the executive and courts agree, then they'll kill, if that's what it takes to maintain their power. "Legitimacy" is just another word for superior force.

First, you think and write well. We have no disagreement on most points

The real problem here is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury set the stage for the whole concept of “judicial review” of the then uncharted and untested concept of “constitutionality.”. There was no authority for SCOTUS to assume this power and authority.... They (CJ Taney if memory serves ?) simply deared courts has such authority... and that was that.

That said, right or wrong, (and unfortunately, as in many cases of law, right or wrong ceases to be an issue) that concept is now settled law.

That said, rather than concentrating on the issue of whether or not SCOTUS has reviewing authority, I prefer to concentrate in currently practical areas. I believe strongly that we will get a strong 10th ammendment case before the Court (probably not firearms related). I think the entire concept of some Constitution guarantee of “privacy” as nose under the tent to get the abortion issue federalized is very attackable. We win on that 10th amendment issue, we have created a conservative tsunami

Sorry I can’t get more into Marbury and some old profs papers (mimeographed!) on it, but I am in Adama, Turkey this AM on just my IPhone

Be well.

First, you think and write well. We have no disagreement on most points

That said, right or wrong, (and unfortunately, as in many cases of law, right or wrong ceases to be an issue) that concept is now settled law.

Sorry I can’t get more into Marbury and some old profs papers (mimeographed!) on it, but I am in Adama, Turkey this AM on just my IPhone

Be well.

-- The real problem here is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury set the stage for the whole concept of "judicial review" of the then uncharted and untested concept of "constitutionality.". There was no authority for SCOTUS to assume this power and authority.... They (CJ Taney if memory serves ?) simply deared courts has such authority... and that was that. --

The heart and soul of Marbury is that a court, given a set of conflicting laws, has to choose which law will control. Between a constitution that granted limited powers to a court, and a challenge based on statutory law, SCOTUS had to find the constitution superior to the statute.

At bottom, the case stands for the proposition that SCOTUS does not have authority to review a case, where the constitution does not grant jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

The alternative would be to place statutory law in a superior position over the constitution.

-- I think the entire concept of some Constitution guarantee of "privacy" as nose under the tent to get the abortion issue federalized is very attackable. We win on that 10th amendment issue, we have created a conservative tsunami --

Everything is attackable in theory. Even if the "right to privacy" is found to not include the power of the states to regulate abortion (which is the 10th amendment victory I think you are anticipating with your remarks), SCOTUS is not obliged to be logical or consistent. The "states rights" victory is easily limited to that one issue - end of tsunami.

-- Your "heart and soul" paragraph is 180 degrees out of reality. --

Cite the case and show your reasoning.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

The authority, therefore, given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial courts of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution, and it becomes necessary to inquire whether a jurisdiction so conferred can be exercised. ...
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. ...
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. ...

My remark was, "The heart and soul of Marbury is that a court, given a set of conflicting laws, has to choose which law will control. Between a constitution that granted limited powers to a court, and a challenge based on statutory law, SCOTUS had to find the constitution superior to the statute."

You say that remark is 180 degrees out of phase with reality. Explain.

-- Please stop giving totally incorrect legal advice. --

What legal advice have I given? Be precise in your answer. Quote my words, exactly, including the identity of the "FR handle" to whom I am giving this advice.

-- It is very dangerous when people depend on it in important issues such as this --

My opinion on the issue of violating federal firearms laws is that if caught, the violator is screwed. The constitution will not be a viable defense to the statutory violation. This is reality. The government does not adhere to the constitution, and the government will use force of violence to fine, incarcerate, or kill you, if it has to, to obtain compliance with its statutes. The courts will, by and large, find for the government. On firearms violations, the courts will almost certainly side with the government.

That is an unequivocal call to abide by the law, even if the law is morally wrong. It is the same ultimate advice that you give. The only difference between us is that you claim the government is faithful to the constitution, and can be persuaded with logic.

-- It is so bad an interpretation it gives rise to thoughts of a troll trying to kill our rights! --

LOL. ROTFL. I'm trying to kill individual rights?

You clearly do not understand, or are trying to hide, that the significant of Marbury is that is was the driving case in which SCOTUS granted iftelf the authority to review laws, and at it’s choosing, invalidate such a law by declaring said law “unconstitutional.”

This was about Day Three of Con Law 101...... and any good law student was expected to be able to speak on it long before the first day of the first semester.

Since you did not even understand the most simple concepts of one of the most important SCOTUS decisions ever, I’m sorry, but further discussions with you would be like...... Let’s just say “unproductive.”

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.