Dammit.
Article I, § 8:
I’d additionally point out that the O.E.D. has the same meaning going back long before 1789
Right. It guarantees certain rights to The People, and allows government to regulate others - the bearing of arms included. The Declaration is not a source of legal rights, btw, and does not override a governmental regulatory act taken in accordance with the Constitution. Just so you’re clear.
Same advice here to you: You don’t have to like the way the law is, but your energy would be better spent on activism than denial.
So what would be the text of the amendment that you’d have to get passed to make the world the way you want it to be? Simply delete that half of the single sentence in the 2nd? Or what? Good luck to y’all.
Well, if you want to wallow in ahistoricism, go right ahead. Fascism might be tyranny, but the tyranny the founders were concerned with was not fascism.
All A is B does not mean that all B is A.
In Chicago in 1968 an ordinance was passed requiring residents of Chicago to register all of their handguns. This registration was good for two years only and then the owner was required to re-register. Then, in 1983 an additional ordinance was passed which prevented new handgun registrations. That is, the only handguns which were now eligible for registration were those owned—and registered—prior to the passing of the 1983 ordinance; these were “grandfathered” in. All handguns purchased after 1983 by residents of Chicago are now “illegally” owned since they cannot be registered.
Chicago’s ban on handguns was modeled on legislation passed earlier in Washington, D.C.
http://reason.com/9408/col.ford.shtml
There are some interesting numbers about the initial lack, and continuing decline, of total handgun registrations in Chicago in that article.
It is interesting to note that there is currently a debate in Chicago about the ability of city prosecutors to take to attempt to indict & prosecute persons—as felons—who have used an unregistered handgun to defend themselves in their homes. The way it looks like it’s gonna shake out, is that persons using unregistered handguns defensively in their homes will not be liable for criminal prosecution.
I have found this article regarding Chicago, which says ‘Now, for the second time in five years, he has proposed legislation to reopen handgun registration.’
Essentially what happened is that in Chicago, they made it law that all handguns had to be registered, and then closed the registration so that no handguns could be registered - therefore meaning that no one in Chicago could lawfully purchase and own a handgun. Chicago had imposed the registration scheme in 1968 and then closed the system to new registrations in 1982.
As for Washington, DC, as you can see here (heavily footnoted) is the reference that "A second purpose of some registration schemes, most notably that in Washington, D.C.[14] and the faded California Proposition 15,[15] is to limit the number of handguns by placing a ceiling on the number of registered weapons.
[/quote]
And from Packing.Org we have the following information regarding Washington, DC:
So DC required registration of all handguns, and then closed the registration of handguns on Sept. 24, 1976. Not that this is not Packing.Org’s interpretation of the law, but they have actually cited chapter and verse.
So yes, registration schemes have, in at least these two cases that I remember, become de facto bans. There is nothing ‘slippery slope’ about believing it could happen again.
That should be ‘Note that…’
Thanks Catsix. I tried to google it myself but could only find mentions of it.
IMHO, the laws are crap and of little value as crime deterrent. However, the laws in question have not spread to other cities or states, and due to the political clout of the NRA lobby it is unlikely that they ever will.
Just my .02 on the slippery slope idea
Where, specifically in the Constitution, is Congress given the power to regulate the ownership of firearms?
Nowhere did I say that the Declaration of Independence did carry the weight of law. I did say that it is a useful tool in determining the intention behind, meaning of, and beliefs surrounding the rights specifically protected in the Constitution, as are other documents from the time period such as Common Sense and The Federalist Papers as well as the myriads of letters that the Framers wrote to each other which now survive as historical documents and allow us a look into the thoughts and beliefs of those who formed the government of this republic.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the Second Amendment the way it is. I believe the problem lies more in an inability to read and comprehend plain English. A well regulated militia is certainly a reason why the people’s right shall not be infringed, which makes it an apt introductory phrase.
Thank UncleBeer too. It looks as if he posted while I was in the middle of composing mine.
Perhaps this is an indication that there is a need for such a lobby. If the NRA lobby has been the driving force behind keeping these poor laws from spreading to other areas, then it is, IMO, very incorrect to say that there is no need for such a lobby because these laws have not spread. Which is what the OP is saying, right? That the gun lobby is bad and/or unnecessary?
But, having criticized me for admitting that i don’t know where most criminals get their guns, you have done nothing to enlighten me.
Answer me this: do you believe that any of the guns currently being used by criminals in the United States, and/or currently being traded on the black market in the US, started their life as legitimate, legal firearms made by American manufacturers, and/or imported by American companies, and/or sold by legitimate gun dealers?
And, if the answer to this is “yes,” how did these guns get into the criminals hands? Because if a gun starts out legal, and ends up in a criminal’s hands, then at some stage in the process it must change hands from a legal owner to an unlawful owner. And, if this is happening, what should be done to stop it?
Finally, if criminals are always going to be able to get guns through illegal imports, and this presents such a danger to America, why is it that so many other countries that have stricter gun laws don’t have criminals importing firearms by the thousand and taking over the streets? I’m truly curious about this, because it seems to me that many pro-gun arguments in America actually seem to begin from the premise that Americans are somehow naturally more predisposed to violence than everyone else, and i find that a rather puzzling position.
Well, if this works like it’s supposed to, then it seems to be a pretty good system. But a common criticism made of the NICS is that it is, in fact, rather deficient in incorporating state and local criminal records, and that the extent to which those records are incorporated is often a product of the efficiency and interest of local and state agencies.
While it is true that all states have to meet certain minimum federal requirements, it is my understanding that it is considerably easier in some states than in others to buy firearms without NICS criminal record checks or background checks. For example, while some states require that gun sales by private individuals to other private individuals be subjected to such background and criminal record checks, others require that such checks be performed on for gun sales carried out by federally-licensed dealers. And some states fall between these two, mandating checks for privately-sold handguns, but not for rifles or shotguns.
If my understanding on this is wrong, i’m happy to be corrected.
There’s more I should have added about the Chicago registration ban. In addition to handguns, it is now required that all firearms owned by residents of that city are registered to be considered “legal.” And in addition to the sunset on handgun registrations, the so-called assualt weapons may not be registered.
Here’s the Chicago Municpal Code. Enter “8-20-040” in the search box at the top of the page to go to the firearms registration section(s).
That should be “performed only for”.
And it’s even worse than I thought. Residents are prohibited from owning or possessing even ammunition of any type/caliber unless it is ammunition for a firearm for which they hold a valid registration.
Ridiculous - in the extreme.
So I guess you folks are right; there is no slippery slope. Unless one happens to live in Chicago, or D.C.
Article I, § 8, para. 3, to the extent that the regulation of firearms ownership is a matter affecting interstate or international commerce. Given that the vast majority of guns travel across state and national borders on their way to the ultimate purchaser, it’s pretty much a slam dunk that Congress has constitutional power to regulate the ownership of all or nearly all firearms. Whether it would be worthwhile to do so, of course, a separate question.
I take note that after Congress rewrote the Gun-Free School Zones Act (or whatever it was called) in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Lopez decision, courts have uniformly held that the revised statute is a proper exercise of Commerce Clause power because it now limits the peope eligible for federal prosecution to those who were carrying guns that had traveled through interstate commerce.
Thanks for sharing that. I myself am reticent to point out that the people who disagree with me on this issue do so only because they are all retarded, so it’s refreshing to see such candor from the other side.
The very same thing(s) we are doing to stop crimimals from stealing your car stereo, or your coin collection.
Excellent points.
Those are not points, but questions, and already answered. Scroll up, numbnut.
Sounds like that argument works for just about everything: The newspaper you bought was probably printed in another state, abortions can be performed with equipment built in another state, the internet reaches across state borders, satelite TV is transmitted from space, etc. In modern society there’s not a whole lot that isn’t transported across state lines, or built from raw materials that have. Can congress use the commerce clause to effectively outlaw any or all of the above?
Given that the fourth amendment still applies even if your home is searched via wiretap (telephones being unheard of when the amendment was written) it seems that the commerce clause shouldn’t invalidate the Bill of Rights. Isn’t the purpose of an amendment to change/clarify what came before (even though the first ten were ratified at the same time)? I’m sure some of the materials used to build my home crossed state lines to get here but if I don’t see a warrant the police can pound sand if they want to take a look-see.
Does commerce only apply to products, or are services covered as well? Can congress prevent me from having a defense at trial if my attorney studied at an out-of-state law school (even if he passed this state’s bar)? Seems like most or all of the Patriot Act can find approval if this line of reasoning is taken to its conclusion.
Huh?
The difference is, i can buy a car stereo or a coin collection, and sell it on to another private citizen without worrying about whether they’ll use it to commit a crime.
With a gun, on the other hand, if i undertake the same process of buying something from a licensed dealer and then selling it on to a third party, i have no such assurance. Also, the absence (in some states) of any law requiring a criminal record or background check on that third party leaves the system open to the sort of problems that don’t apply to car stereos and stamp collections.
If gun theft were the only way that guns get into the hands of killers and armed robbers and gun dealers, then you would have a point.
Pretty close to it. In the last 70 or so years, the Supreme Court has only ruled twice that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause.
To the extent that a later amendment to the Constitution conflicts with the original text, the later amendment controls. Hence, the First Amendment limits Congress’ power to “outlaw” newspapers and satellite television transmissions, and the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments limit the power of the federal and state governments, respectively, to “outlaw” abortions. In the absence of such constitutional conflicts, however, there is very little that Congress does not have the power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, as interpreted and applied by the courts since the days of the Great Depression.
And yes, I am aware that the later-passed Second Amendment controls in the event of any conflict with the Commerce Clause.
[quote]
minty green said:
Did you receive a different copy of the Constitution than me? The Constitution I read provided for the Congress to be able to ‘regulate interstate commerce’ in general, not to be a back door into abridging rights specifically protected. How is it that regulating commerce somehow covers what individual citizens can and cannot own?
Really? It does?
Considering that a very common usage of the word regulate in the latter part of the 18th century was to mean ‘to bring order, method, or uniformity’, it makes clear sense that the ‘interstate commerce’ clause is designed to foster an enviornment of order and uniformity in interstate transactions, so as to prevent such things as one state unfairly imposing tariffs on products made in other states, or to provide channels for such commerce to happen (standardized railroads and highways, for example). It’s been used to make end-runs around liberty, but that doesn’t mean those things are right.
I really don’t see what that clause has to do with the private ownership of firearms. Anyway, the simplest solution to that problem is to operate a manufacturing plant within each state and sell only to that state’s residents. Or, y’know, make my own firearms at home. It’s not difficult.
Well, I’m just a little bit sick of the smug way you tend to act regarding these Constitutional debates. As if your opinion, because you are a lawyer, is so much more valid and correct than everyone else’s. It’s no personal insult to you that anyone with a decent level of reading comprehension can understand the language of the Constitution. It’s not exactly written in encrypted Farsi.