The last ruling of the Supreme Court on the second amendment held that Miller’s shotgun was not protected under the second amendment because it hadn’t been proven that it was a viable military weapon. (That he had no representation at the appeal to make the case that it was is another argument).
Given that, the Supreme Court is saying that militarily useful weapons are the most protected weapons under the second amendment, which makes sense, given the historical context. The militia is required to supply their own weapons, of military usefulness.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 put forth authority for the secretary of the treasury to ban firearms from manufacture or importation that are not “readily adaptable to sporting purposes”.
This idea of firearms requiring a sporting purpose to be protected under the second amendment is in direct contradiction to the last Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. There is no historical or legal context which supports the idea that the Second Amendment has anything to do at all with “sporting” arms. This new standard is, in my opinion, blatantly unConstitutional, and flies in the face of US v. Miller.
The justification of “assault weapon” bans, particularly of '89 and '94, has been that they did not suit a sporting purpose, but were military-style weapons. Under US v. Miller, and historical precedent, the obvious intent of the Second Amendment is to provide protection for militarily useful arms. And although sporting arms are assumably protected under the Second Amendment too (there’s no reason they wouldn’t be), militarily useful firearms are the most protected firearms.
The Founding Fathers said so. Historical precedent says so. US v. Miller says so. The GCA of 1968 is blatantly unConstitutional.
Well, it looks like Mr. Miller and his sawed off shotgun are up the creek. He has a weapon not suitable for military or sporting use.
As far as the 1998 Act is concerned, let me suggest that you make your self into a test case. Go get a weapon prohibited by the statute, a set of camies, and face paint, walk up to your local gandameri and announce that you are there to be arrested so as to contest the statute’s validity under the Second Amendment. Let us know how it goes.
Yet there it has stood since 1968, despite the protection from tyranny supposedly provided by the second amendment. Which supports my theory that many people either don’t believe a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, or don’t consider freedom to be a big priority.
I agree with you on the latter part. People don’t value their freedom highly enough. But I don’t think people are well educated enough to understand the issue at hand. They don’t realize the significance of the “sporting clause” requirement.
It’s hard to rebel against tyranny when you don’t see it coming. Hopefully, education on the subject will change that… but there is the problem that people (particularly in this society, modern day…) doesn’t value their freedom as much as I’d like.
Were there any Constitutional challenges made to the Gun Control Act of 1968 in Federal courts?
You don’t have to break the law in order to challenge its Constitutionality in a Federal court; you can sue the Federal government to have the law revoked. (This happened with the Communications Decency Act a few years ago.) Has anybody tried this with the 1968 Act? What was the outcome?
I assume you’re referring to the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986, in which a few of the most ridiculous aspects of the 1968 GCA were repealed. The bulk of it, including the ‘sporting clause’, is still in effect.
Interesting. I didn’t know the judicial system was so widespread in it’s corruption.
In any case, this decision seems (and I’m not a lawyer) to contradict US v. Miller, which stated that the militia was made up of all men capable of acting in the common defense. Given that US v. Miller occured in a higher court, as far as I know, the contradictory appeals court opinion is of lower standing.
Believe it or not the Supreme Court’s previous decisions and, historical precedent, and the “original intent” (as interpreted by SenorBeef) do not an unconstitutionality make. It could see the possibility that this law could be struck down as violating the Second Amendment (although I feel the law should stay in place.) But something can only be called “unconstitutional” if it violates the constitution itself, not any of the surrounding circumstances.
If what you’re saying was the case, we’d have to overturn the Civil Rights Acts (and possibly Brown v. Topeka) as well, since original intent, Supreme Court decisions (Plessy v. Ferguson) and historical precedent were all against integration.
And this, by the way, is a complete crock. Your hangup is clearly the sporting clause. But the McClure-Volkmer Act changed federal laws in a number of far-reaching and crucial ways, hence the NRA claims it as a great victory.
Ok. You said they repealed the GCA. They did not. Not even the bulk of it.
The ‘sporting clause’ element alone has been entirely low profile, and people don’t seem to care that much. But the introduction of the ‘sporting clause’ is the moment our government officially said 'Forget it. The Second Amendment is meaingless, we’re willing to infringe upon it."
Everything else is just details.
You’re saying it repealed the GCA. It didn’t. It repealed some of the more ridiculous restrictions. I’m the one that needs to learn something?
I assume you’re implying that you think I’m arbitrarily interpreting the Constitution the way I want to see it. I, of course, may be wrong in my interpretation, but it doesn’t come from personal advantage, but objective analysis of the writings of those who wrote it, etc.
Reinterpreting the Constitution to get rid of rights, on the consent of the majority, is called “the tyranny of the majority”, and was something that was specifically warned against.