Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms?They can't!


PDA






joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 09:15 PM
Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms? They can't!

Have most Americans never read the Constitution? Both sides of this debate seem to assume not only that Congress can, but will, or that they already have banned our right to arms. Congress does not have the power to outlaw our right to arms. Not even close.
First, on a good day Congress can't agree on the simplest things. This last Congress agreed on less than any previous modern Congress. Abolish a fundamental right? No.
Second, even if they did agree on sweeping gun control (which I doubt), it still must over come legal challenge. Heller and Miller are not going to be easy for the gun banners to get around. Feinstein can dream and hope all she wants, but she's not a king and can't outlaw Arms. It will be struck down as unConstitutional.
Third, anything done by this Congress can be undone by the next Congress. The first "AWB" caused them to lose control of Congress, and second would probably do the same. Eventually, there will be an opposition party in control. No party has controlled Congress for more than a few years.

A Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd is such a fantasy that no one in Congress/WH has even suggested it.
The Government is not an all powerfull god/king that can rule and outlaw anything it wants. This is a government of specifically enumerated powers. Despite what the tinfoil crowd may claim, this is still a government of laws.

If I hear one more person mention gun confiscation by Executive Orders I'm going to stuff a copy of the Constitution in thier mouth and choke them with the Supreme Court decisions which limited the Presidents EO's. (i.e. US v Nixon)

The sky is not falling. Stop acting like Chicken Little.

I will remind everyone that the first so-called AWB did not ban the Bushmaster XM15's that have been in the news so much. They couldn't. They didn't, and Congress can't.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms?They can't!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TennJed
January 6, 2013, 09:26 PM
Because the constitution warns us that they might try. The reason the 2nd amendment is there is because our forefathers were smart enough to realize we the people might need to be very cautious of our leaders. We need to take this serious

Onmilo
January 6, 2013, 09:28 PM
You're right, to an extent.
What they can do is widen the scope of the National Firearms Act making any guns they so desire as listed restricted.
That means a whole bunch of unnecessary paperwork and hassle just to own your treasured 10/22 Ruger.

Think this is all a big joke that will go away without the word of The People being heard loud and clear you are living in a pipe dream.

Oh, that 94 gun ban made ALL kinds of weapons go away, permanently.
ALL kinds of foreign made "Assault Type" weapons WERE banned and have NEVER been allowed back into the country since.

Zardaia
January 6, 2013, 09:30 PM
Since when does the constitution stop congress? If they can get the votes then they'll do it. By the time it gets around to the supreme court it will have already done it's damage. Considering how close the last gc decision was even the court isn't gonna stop it once obama gets another justice or two. There are greatly differing opinions on what the 2A means. As for enumerated powers, well I agree, but our founding fathers would already deteste how powerful the fed has become. They find more and more ways to grab the power and to hell with states rights. Write your reps and senators folks, hopefully they'll listen!

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 09:35 PM
Incrementalism is the biggest danger. A little here, a little there, over time will add up.
But I'm sick of hearing all this talk about "ban", "confiscation", etc.

Everyone is falling for these scare tactics so that you will accept a little restriction "Geez, it could have been worse, they were trying to ban all semi's"

There is no right to hunt, no right to sport, no right to "tradition" or "collecting". Only "Arms" are protected. They are protected, and repeatedly upheld by the SCOTUS.

gbran
January 6, 2013, 09:40 PM
While SCOTUS has set some important precident thru Miller and McDonald, they have left open reasonable regulation of firearms without defining any specific limits. Congress will push gun control to the limit and SCOTUS will have to decide on a case by case basis whether limits have been crossed.

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 09:49 PM
SCOTUS has already ruled that an outright ban of an entire class of popular weapons was unConstitutional. So are trigger locks, etc. Self defense, Arms, and weapons for Militia use have already been upheld and clearly explained.

Congress can outlaw cloudy days if they want to. That doesn't make it so.

All 9 SCOTUS justices agreed that the right to arms is a fundamental right. The SCOTUS is not in the habbit of overturning itself. They are bound by prior decisions. It will not "sway" because a justice or two dies.
All of this panicing and hand wringing makes us look stupid.

TennJed
January 6, 2013, 09:52 PM
Wasn't the ruling about banning SEF DEFENSE weapons, not popular ones? That is a big difference

22-rimfire
January 6, 2013, 09:58 PM
They can regulate them and restrict their legal use. Kind of like switch blade knives in states where they are legal to own, but not use or carry....

3twelves
January 6, 2013, 09:59 PM
Well, there you have it. joechmoe says our govt. is straight as an arrow and nothing will happen...

hso
January 6, 2013, 10:02 PM
You're kidding, right?

The process is to pass a law and then go through the process of challenges that eventually get to the SCOTUS.

In the time it takes to run through the process you can destroy the industry and practices that make firearms ownership practical. Whether it is overturned or not in the Supreme Court you can take long enough to make that difference

The '94 ban didn't ban the XM15 because of features. In the proposed Feinstein AWB the characteristics to qualify as an AW are now narrowed to that of CA and tighter. The slack has been taken out of this revision of the AWB. Contemplate what a $5 AOW classification under the NFA actually means. Sure you can buy one, BUT you must register it, you must get your CLEO signature to file, you must then WAIT for months to get the approval for the tax to purchase your rifle. THEN there's the taxes and licensing that changes for WalMart, Gander, Academy to deal in NFA weapons. Then there's the taxes and licensing that changes for Distributors. Then there's the taxes and licensing that changes for Manufacturers. All of that adds up to a constriction in the supply chain so that your local LGS that doesn't already deal in NFA items has to decide to invest in being able to deal in the new class of NFA. Many manufacturers will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many distributors will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many retailers will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many people will decide they don't want to spend the time and money to own them thereby reducing the demand and the supply. Make no mistake that the Antis have not missed all the details and that they're planning to sugar coat the bitter pill that will poison ownership of these firearms.

eldon519
January 6, 2013, 10:02 PM
Underestimating your opponent usually doesn't help you to reach victory.

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 10:07 PM
Decision

The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44]

[edit] Issues addressed by the majority

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[45]

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[46]

The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[47] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

hso
January 6, 2013, 10:12 PM
wiki? Really?

Alaska444
January 6, 2013, 10:17 PM
You're kidding, right?

The process is to pass a law and then go through the process of challenges that eventually get to the SCOTUS.

In the time it takes to run through the process you can destroy the industry and practices that make firearms ownership practical. Whether it is overturned or not in the Supreme Court you can take long enough to make that difference

The '94 ban didn't ban the XM15 because of features. In the proposed Feinstein AWB the characteristics to qualify as an AW are now narrowed to that of CA and tighter. The slack has been taken out of this revision of the AWB. Contemplate what a $5 AOW classification under the NFA actually means. Sure you can buy one, BUT you must register it, you must get your CLEO signature to file, you must then WAIT for months to get the approval for the tax to purchase your rifle. THEN there's the taxes and licensing that changes for WalMart, Gander, Academy to deal in NFA weapons. Then there's the taxes and licensing that changes for Distributors. Then there's the taxes and licensing that changes for Manufacturers. All of that adds up to a constriction in the supply chain so that your local LGS that doesn't already deal in NFA items has to decide to invest in being able to deal in the new class of NFA. Many manufacturers will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many distributors will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many retailers will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many people will decide they don't want to spend the time and money to own them thereby reducing the demand and the supply. Make no mistake that the Antis have not missed all the details and that they're planning to sugar coat the bitter pill that will poison ownership of these firearms.
That was the process for the most part UNTIL Obama. He marches to his own drummer and thumbs his nose at the constitution on a regular basis. Remember, by law, they are supposed to pass a budget every year as well. That has not stopped Obama from doubling the debt during his term in office by 2016.

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 10:21 PM
You're kidding, right?

The process is to pass a law and then go through the process of challenges that eventually get to the SCOTUS.

In the time it takes to run through the process you can destroy the industry and practices that make firearms ownership practical. Whether it is overturned or not in the Supreme Court you can take long enough to make that difference

The '94 ban didn't ban the XM15 because of features. In the proposed Feinstein AWB the characteristics to qualify as an AW are now narrowed to that of CA and tighter. The slack has been taken out of this revision of the AWB. Contemplate what a $5 AOW classification under the NFA actually means. Sure you can buy one, BUT you must register it, you must get your CLEO signature to file, you must then WAIT for months to get the approval for the tax to purchase your rifle. THEN there's the taxes and licensing that changes for WalMart, Gander, Academy to deal in NFA weapons. Then there's the taxes and licensing that changes for Distributors. Then there's the taxes and licensing that changes for Manufacturers. All of that adds up to a constriction in the supply chain so that your local LGS that doesn't already deal in NFA items has to decide to invest in being able to deal in the new class of NFA. Many manufacturers will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many distributors will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many retailers will decide they don't want to spend the time and money. Many people will decide they don't want to spend the time and money to own them thereby reducing the demand and the supply. Make no mistake that the Antis have not missed all the details and that they're planning to sugar coat the bitter pill that will poison ownership of these firearms.
No. Congress, even feinstien, is not in the habit of picking fights with the SCOTUS. They didn't pass laws that violated the 2nd in the first AWB, because they knew they couldn't, and they won't try it in the new version.
The goal is to scare you into allowing incremental changes that probably WILL pass SCOTUS challenge.

Your fear is the goal. They are not trying to overcome the 2nd amendment. They KNOW they can't. They are trying to overcome the voting masses to allow incremental change. One step at a time.
Scare you with "ban" and "confiscation", which would be struck down, but instead pass smaller changes which will withstand SCOTUS challenge.
Scare you with massive "bans" so you will allow smaller changes. They CANNOT pass massive bans. They don't have the votes or the power and it would be overturned anyway.

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 10:24 PM
That was the process for the most part UNTIL Obama. He marches to his own drummer and thumbs his nose at the constitution on a regular basis. Remember, by law, they are supposed to pass a budget every year as well. That has not stopped Obama from doubling the debt during his term in office by 2016.
Congress writes the budgets, not the President. They can write budgets for 2 years. Read the Constitution.

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 10:26 PM
wiki? Really?
Yes. It's a good summary, with refrences. Do you have a source that says different or do you have an irratiational fear of wiki?

Carpedium
January 6, 2013, 10:28 PM
Very short sighted. Check out the NDAA. The constitution does not mean anything to these people.

Alaska444
January 6, 2013, 10:29 PM
Congress writes the budgets, not the President. They can write budgets for 2 years. Read the Constitution.
Which budget is it that they have passed my friend. Read the news.

BCCL
January 6, 2013, 10:29 PM
Why did it take a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but doesn't to ban guns?

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 10:30 PM
Well, there you have it. joechmoe says our govt. is straight as an arrow and nothing will happen...
Read again. Incremental change is thier goal. Bans cannot happen.

With everyone acting like chicken little they have already won a huge victory. If instead we actedlike reasonable and knowledgable citizens they will have a much harder time achieving incremental change.

hso
January 6, 2013, 10:31 PM
Children aren't even allowed to use wiki as a reference in elementary school.

Dig deeper if you want to be taken seriously.

Alaska444
January 6, 2013, 10:35 PM
No. Congress, even feinstien, is not in the habit of picking fights with the SCOTUS. They didn't pass laws that violated the 2nd in the first AWB, because they knew they couldn't, and they won't try it in the new version.
The goal is to scare you into allowing incremental changes that probably WILL pass SCOTUS challenge.

Your fear is the goal. They are not trying to overcome the 2nd amendment. They KNOW they can't. They are trying to overcome the voting masses to allow incremental change. One step at a time.
Scare you with "ban" and "confiscation", which would be struck down, but instead pass smaller changes which will withstand SCOTUS challenge.
Scare you with massive "bans" so you will allow smaller changes. They CANNOT pass massive bans. They don't have the votes or the power and it would be overturned anyway.
With all due respect, Obama has played intimidation games with SCOTUS and openly threatened them.

http://truenorthnewsandcommentary.com/2010/01/28/state-of-the-union-president-obamas-disrespect-for-the-supreme-court/

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/06/29/obama-bully-roberts-upholding-obamacare/

They have already passed bans and they do indeed today have the power to usurp constitutional powers not delegated by the founding fathers. We have strayed far. Executive orders completely abrogate the balance of power between executive, legislative and judicial branches.

NAFTA and GATT passed in lame duck sessions without being read. Obamacare passed without being read. Obamacare was passed by a reconciliation act over riding the 60 vote threshold needed. Obama completely ignored the mandated war powers act. We could go on and on about how the current administration and congress completely ignore their constitutional mandates.

Understanding the intended operation of our founding fathers and the reality of today being a completely different issues, quite sadly I must admit.

primalmu
January 6, 2013, 10:35 PM
Wikipedia has been shown repeatedly to be more accurate than published encyclopedias. Are you as skeptical regarding the information found in encyclopedias as you are Wikipedia?

Alaska444
January 6, 2013, 10:38 PM
Why did it take a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but doesn't to ban guns?
So true. That is because the people have sought fleeting promises of security and freely given up their constitutional rights not understanding that the power in our constitution was with the people. Interesting observation about guns and alcohol and the amendment process.

Randall53
January 6, 2013, 10:39 PM
The sure intend to try.....here is something I read on another forum earlier today......seems to show a lot about how many in Washington and the media try their best to twist everything to their favor. It also shows how little these people know about what they can and can't do...Hell, most liberals feel the Constitution is in their way anyway and will try to get around it any way they can......Here's the post from the other forum:

It’s pretty obvious that Feinstein, like so many others just like her in Washington, want to take control of American citizens. They look at us as peasants or subjects as a famous Marine recently stated and could not care less about the Constitution they have sworn to protect and uphold.

I was reading an article today about Feinstein and some other comments regarding the open letter from the retired Marine Joshua Boston I’m sure you’ve all read. What’s REALLY scary is how little the people that are supposed to be leading our country know about the constitution and even the oaths they have taken before taking office. Here is how Feinstein and many others think:
“In response to Boston's letter, a commenter on the iReport website suggested that the former Marine, by refusing to comply with a law, would be going against the Constitution. Ms. Feinstein is an elected official who was selected by voters to represent their interests in a governing body," YankCT wrote. "She has the authority and responsibility to do just that until the people whom she represents decide otherwise through their votes. This gentleman believes that he is above the law. This is untrue; in fact, my guess is that he swore to defend the country and respect its laws when he entered the Marines." Actually, rather than “guess” about the oath Marine Boston took, a 3 minute search would have made it clear as a bell. Instead, we have the ignorance that abounds in Washington and the Media. It is people like Feinstein that believes they are above the law……Joshua Boston was the one that was correct….Look below please:

Here is the Marines Enlistment Oath:
“I (repeat name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulation and the uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

Anyone that can read and comprehend can see that the allegiance of the military is to defend “the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” FIRST AND FOREMOST!!! Since any order of the President or of an officer over them is REQUIRED to be in compliance with the first part, then obeying orders of the president and of officers over them are subject to the qualification of the first part of the oath. Thus, any order given by the president, or bill submitted by lawmakers and/or signed into law by the president, that is in violation of the Constitution makes the person issuing that order or submitting that bill possibly guilty of subversion against the Constitution and the United States, and thus becoming a domestic enemy of both.

Feinstein and her cronies SHOULD HAVE KNOWN the oath the Marine had taken. Why? Because SHE and every person in office in Washington had to take a similar oath very similar to Joshua Boston when he took HIS oath to be a Marine but obviously have forgotten all about it.

The current oath for elected officials was enacted in 1884:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

In their zeal and blind rush to disarm America, it would not take much at all for them to overstep their places by violating the 2nd, 4th, and the 5th Amendments in their quest and becoming one of those Domestic Enemies mentioned in the oaths they have all taken.

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 10:40 PM
...

joeschmoe
January 6, 2013, 10:44 PM
Children aren't even allowed to use wiki as a reference in elementary school.

Dig deeper if you want to be taken seriously.
They also are not allowed to use calculators. Red herring.

Are you saying you think Congress DOES have the power to ban Arms?

mljdeckard
January 6, 2013, 10:47 PM
I generally agree with the OP, and have been saying the same thing for weeks. A whole lot of people screaming about falling sky which helps our opposition, not us.

However, it shouldn't be said that they 'can't do it'........when they obviously have.

I am less critical of wikipedia than I used to be. Don't get me wrong, I'll still gleefully slam someone when they use it as a source, but just because something is stated in wikipedia doesn't automatically mean it's wrong either. Particularly things that are black and white, like laws, and the facts surrounding court decisions. I'll use it to look up the max OAL on my 22-250 casings. Stossel did a piece on them this weekend, and it should be acknowledged, that no other source is perfect either. He cited an independent investigation, that compared them to other sources, and found that wikipedia averages four errors per article. (Stossel said his personal article had one.) Encyclopedia Brittanica averages three errors per article. Not much difference. The establishment resisting acknowledging wikipedia's credibility seems much like the government telling us we can't possibly handle the responsibility of taking control of our own safety.

22-rimfire
January 6, 2013, 11:03 PM
No. Congress, even feinstien, is not in the habit of picking fights with the SCOTUS. They didn't pass laws that violated the 2nd in the first AWB, because they knew they couldn't, and they won't try it in the new version.

It takes years for court challenges in most cases to reach the Supreme Court. Businesses can't survive "years". A severely restrictive law as comptemplated will destroy the firearm industry regardless of whether it is constitutional or not. Do you want Glock fighting for your rights in the US?

The Constitution has not stopped our President from skipping right past the constitution until he is forced, I say FORCED to look at it and he's supposed to be an expert in constitutional law? Congress is required by law to pass a budget.... ObamaCare was passed and their were serious constitutional challenges BEFORE it was voted on. The Supreme Cout basically said... let the voters decide... it's a TAX.

mljdeckard
January 6, 2013, 11:11 PM
Something someone else pointed to me, is that this may well be the last chance for the banners. Lautenberg is 88. Feinstein is......old. McCarthy came to office on this single issue, and she has absolutely nothing to show for it. Biden is gone after this. (His being on this 'committee' is a reprieve.) These people don't have enough time left to ride out the cycle and wait for the right opportunity. This is IT. They will never again get a crime this outrageous that will hold the public's attention for this long because they are in a lame duck session and they are tired of hearing about budget talks. You know they were praying three times a day for an event like this to happen in the middle of the session when they crammed the health care through. (Yes, I absolutely believe they are that grade of ghoul.) They have actually missed the window, but they HAVE to try it now anyway, because they are done either way.

lonehunter
January 6, 2013, 11:31 PM
If you don't think it will happen why are you even arguing the point?

The 2nd amendment gives us the write to keep and bare arms!

It does not say what type of arms! Or how many! Can they be registered? Is ammo protected by the 2nd?

I would rather be over prepared to fight for our rites than wait for it to happen then complain!

This president has proven he can ram things down our throats!

You have more trust in our government than I do!

Go ahead and Stick your head in the sand! The rest of us choose to fight for your rites right along with ours!

Jeff

mljdeckard
January 6, 2013, 11:38 PM
Try the decaf. You sound like someone who just got reprimanded for not using punctuation, so now you only use the exclamation point to be snarky. Calm down.

TennJed
January 6, 2013, 11:45 PM
Are you saying you think Congress DOES have the power to ban Arms?

With all do respect I think you are missing the point. I am not as concerned with them having the POWER as I am of them having the ABILITY. Them have the POWER is a long term issues. Them having the ability to do it is what we should be concerned with first. Having to rely on the SCOTUS to change things is a option I rather avoid

Alaska444
January 6, 2013, 11:49 PM
With all do respect I think you are missing the point. I am not as concerned with them having the POWER as I am of them having the ABILITY. Them have the POWER is a long term issues. Them having the ability to do it is what we should be concerned with first. Having to rely on the SCOTUS to change things is a option I rather avoid
Exactly, it didn't work very well with Obamacare waiting for SCOTUS to do the right thing.

-v-
January 7, 2013, 12:01 AM
The intention that I read from the OP was that he wanted to point out that the anti's want us to get wrapped up around the axle about this "BIG BAN" on all firearms and that this is a ruse. They want our attention shifted there so they can sneak through small incremental bans on this or that, or put enough incremental hurdles to eventually make ownership untenable. I think we've seen some of that succed with the "the ban is 100% certain to happen" crowd.

That said, with how congress can't even agree on a budget with broad support from both sides (Ie: Pass something <deleted>), I find it somewhat dubious that they will all come together and agree on a firearms ban of any sort.

As for SCOTUS never going back on its decisions, let me hold up Plessy v Fergusson and then Brown v Board of Education. SCOTUS can and has gone back and overturned its own prior rulings.

Be vigilant, but don't be hysteric, ya'll. Level heads win fights.

litman252
January 7, 2013, 12:07 AM
I'm sure a 200% tax on ammo would help to reduce crime. You understand that we all have to give a little more right? Only the rich have guns, the police will protect the poor, only the rich buy this stuff, they can help the rest of us. It's not for ordinary Americans......

I can hear the speech already.

I hope I'm wrong.

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 12:41 AM
Exactly, it didn't work very well with Obamacare waiting for SCOTUS to do the right thing.

That's because the SCOTUS found it to be constitutional for the most part. I wish some of you guys would stop harping on this president, as though history started when he was elected. The previous president wiped his ass with the constitution daily, doing the same things or much worse than the current one has done. That guy set the stage for indefinite detentions. That guy talked people in a moment of fear into passing the Patriot Act (the most unpatriotic piece of legislation in recent memory). That guy had people tortured, and then tried to get his lawyers to come up with a way to justify it. This one wants to make healthcare more available and affordable, and somehow he is the devil?study up. Let's stick to talking guns, and stop ranting about divisive political stuff, including your gross misunderstandings of how gov't is works (budgets, etc). Insulting liberals doesn't contribute to the conversation. I am a "liberal" I am pro RKBA, I want the NFA/GCA/etc overturned. I am not your enemy.

Calm down, stop talking and thinking like a paranoid wingnut, and let's talk about guns and gun control, Mmmkay? Y'all know who you are, I hope.

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 12:44 AM
That said, with how congress can't even agree on a budget with broad support from both sides (Ie: Pass something, deleted), I find it somewhat dubious that they will all come together and agree on a firearms ban of any sort.



most of the people in congress now were around when the "patriot act" was passed in a moment of hysteria. Most of these people voted for that, on both sides of the aisle. They are capable of acting when they get hysterical enough, let's all hope that they don't.

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 12:49 AM
Back to the original topic, sort of, has there been a court case where someone actually tried to challenge the NFA/GCA/Hughes Amendment? If so, why not? Based on my (admittedly weak) understanding of miller, this would have been a great time to do so, but he died before the decision was made, and never really had his day in court.

Alaska444
January 7, 2013, 01:31 AM
That's because the SCOTUS found it to be constitutional for the most part. I wish some of you guys would stop harping on this president, as though history started when he was elected. The previous president wiped his ass with the constitution daily, doing the same things or much worse than the current one has done. That guy set the stage for indefinite detentions. That guy talked people in a moment of fear into passing the Patriot Act (the most unpatriotic piece of legislation in recent memory). That guy had people tortured, and then tried to get his lawyers to come up with a way to justify it. This one wants to make healthcare more available and affordable, and somehow he is the devil?study up. Let's stick to talking guns, and stop ranting about divisive political stuff, including your gross misunderstandings of how gov't is works (budgets, etc). Insulting liberals doesn't contribute to the conversation. I am a "liberal" I am pro RKBA, I want the NFA/GCA/etc overturned. I am not your enemy.

Calm down, stop talking and thinking like a paranoid wingnut, and let's talk about guns and gun control, Mmmkay? Y'all know who you are, I hope.
With all due respect, Bush is not the topic of this thread since he did not propose AWB as Obama is doing and as we expected him to do. Nor do I over look Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter etc. and their abrogation step by step of our constitutional rights. However, they are not president at this time and those are different battles you are talking about.

So, you call me a wingnut because I accurately portray history. Get real and remember that this is the High Road. If you wish to discuss issues, please do so, but leave your ad hominem addresses at home. If you are counting on SCOTUS to do the right thing like Congress is supposed and the President is supposed to, you are not living in reality.

Since this is a gun firearms forum, I can't state much on the Obamacare decision, but go and read the convoluted illogical reasoning of Chief Justice Roberts and you can discern that there was indeed some sort of coercion that swayed his original vote against the legislation. Just plain and simple facts my friend. So call me wingnut all you wish, I will simple relate historical facts on the record.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/28/did-justice-roberts-change-his-obamacare-vote-at-the-eleventh-hour/

Have a great night.

arizona_cards_11
January 7, 2013, 01:46 AM
I think we all know how the much the 'Constitutionality' of a law matters......history proves the Anti-Federalists to be right.

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 01:51 AM
So, you call me a wingnut because I accurately portray history. Get real and remember that this is the High Road. If you wish to discuss issues, please do so, but leave your ad hominem addresses at home.

please remind everyone here who bashes "liberals" to do the same thing. Guns are not a liberal/conservative issue, despite what all too many here want to imagine. when people start in on paranoid theories about what the president is doing regarding health care, it doesn't help our cause, it leads instead to divisiveness amongst us.

Alaska444
January 7, 2013, 01:56 AM
I think we all know how the much the 'Constitutionality' of a law matters......history proves the Anti-Federalists to be right.
I don't believe that the constitution was horribly flawed when in fact it was a very well written document, nevertheless not perfect.

The problem is NOT with the document, but instead it is a problem with the generation of men it now rules or rather is supposed to rule. There is an element of agreement between the Federalists and many that opposed them in that they all agreed that no law can rule men that are not ruled by God.

William Penn stated: “A people who will not be ruled by God are destined to be ruled by tyrants.”

John Adams stated the following about how the constitution was written: Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

For a Biblical reference, I advise people of the truth of Proverbs 28:2 For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.

That statement is true today as it was 3000 years ago. I know that this is a gun forum, but when discussing the Bill of Rights, the understanding of how far the law would apply under the constitution, it is important to understand the philosophy and religion of those that wrote the document.

1911 guy
January 7, 2013, 02:03 AM
I think you are wrong about the Affordable Care Act being paranoid theory regarding its passage. It is precedent pertaining to the current argument.

Congress does indeed lack the Constitutional power to ban firearms. But they have already. Anybody here recall the NFA of 1934? CGA 1968 was a further restriction. FOPA 1986 yet again. Then again in 1994, banning the sale and importation of certain firearms and acessories. We got lucky with cooler heads demanding a sunset provision.

There is nothing that grants me the power to take what is yours. Ability, however, is restrained only by my sense of morality or your ability to defend against it.

It's time we got serious about defending against it, rather than arguing amongst one another that it can't happen. It is happening now. It has merely been such a long process, the first infringement predating any of us, that we have come to accept it at the norm. Frog in a pot.

arizona_cards_11
January 7, 2013, 02:13 AM
Alaska, you'll have no argument from me on the root of America's problem.

In my estimation, the Constitution, whether flawed or not, had the ability to be misinterpreted according to the wickedness of man. Under a 'weaker' compact or set of articles, misinterpretation would lack the national impact the Constitution affords.

Of course, this is all water under the bridge. No sense in me crying over ~230 year old spilt milk.

Alaska444
January 7, 2013, 02:21 AM
Alaska, you'll have no argument from me on the root of America's problem.

In my estimation, the Constitution, whether flawed or not, had the ability to be misinterpreted according to the wickedness of man. Under a 'weaker' compact or set of articles, misinterpretation would lack the national impact the Constitution affords.

Of course, this is all water under the bridge. No sense in me crying over ~230 year old spilt milk.
The Articles of Confederation were not strong enough to pull the nation together either. So be it, God remains in control. Another quote from Adams that appeals to our times:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511.

One of the principle authors of the constitution spoke precisely of what we should avoid on so many accounts. We were supposed to have individuals representing the people from each state. We have strayed far.

Alaska444
January 7, 2013, 02:23 AM
please remind everyone here who bashes "liberals" to do the same thing. Guns are not a liberal/conservative issue, despite what all too many here want to imagine. when people start in on paranoid theories about what the president is doing regarding health care, it doesn't help our cause, it leads instead to divisiveness amongst us.
Sorry, failing to understand the political realities helps no one. I will simply agree to disagree. Since when is recounting recent history "paranoid theories?" No, that is the reality of the battle that this president has usurped more constitutional powers than he was ever granted. Sorry, my friend, just political reality.

Have a great night.

David White
January 7, 2013, 02:46 AM
Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms? They can't!

Have most Americans never read the Constitution? Both sides of this debate seem to assume not only that Congress can, but will, or that they already have banned our right to arms. Congress does not have the power to outlaw our right to arms. Not even close.
First, on a good day Congress can't agree on the simplest things. This last Congress agreed on less than any previous modern Congress. Abolish a fundamental right? No.
Second, even if they did agree on sweeping gun control (which I doubt), it still must over come legal challenge. Heller and Miller are not going to be easy for the gun banners to get around. Feinstein can dream and hope all she wants, but she's not a king and can't outlaw Arms. It will be struck down as unConstitutional.
Third, anything done by this Congress can be undone by the next Congress. The first "AWB" caused them to lose control of Congress, and second would probably do the same. Eventually, there will be an opposition party in control. No party has controlled Congress for more than a few years.

A Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd is such a fantasy that no one in Congress/WH has even suggested it.
The Government is not an all powerfull god/king that can rule and outlaw anything it wants. This is a government of specifically enumerated powers. Despite what the tinfoil crowd may claim, this is still a government of laws.

If I hear one more person mention gun confiscation by Executive Orders I'm going to stuff a copy of the Constitution in thier mouth and choke them with the Supreme Court decisions which limited the Presidents EO's. (i.e. US v Nixon)

The sky is not falling. Stop acting like Chicken Little.

I will remind everyone that the first so-called AWB did not ban the Bushmaster XM15's that have been in the news so much. They couldn't. They didn't, and Congress can't.

177321
Bet on it!

177322
Learn from it!

177323
Believe it!

gc70
January 7, 2013, 02:48 AM
Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms?

Who said people assumed that Congress would take any action under the Second Amendment? Congress was not even that naive in 1934.

From the National Firearms Act hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, April 16, 1934:

page 13
Mr. McClintic (D-OK) I would like to ask just one question. I am very much interested in this subject. What in your opinion would be the constitutionality of a provision added to this bill which would require registration, on the part of those who now own the type or class of weapons that are included in this bill?
Attorney General Cummings We were afraid of that, sir.
Mr. McClintic (D-OK) Afraid it would conflict with State laws?
Attorney General Cummings I am afraid it would be unconstitutional.

page 19
Mr. Lewis (D-MD) I hope the courts will find no doubt on a subject like this, General; but I was curious to know how we escaped that provision in the Constitution (the Second Amendment).
Attorney General Cummings Oh, we did not attempt to escape it. We are dealing with another power, namely, the power of taxation, and of regulation under the inter-state commerce clause. You see, if we made a statute absolutely forbidding any human being to have a machine gun, you might say there is some constitutional question involved. But when you say "We will tax the machine gun" and when you say that "the absence of a license showing payment of the tax has been made indicates that a crime has been perpetrated", you are easily within the law.

Look at the bills being proposed and you will see that they all cite the commerce clause or Congress' taxing power. (H.R.21 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/cas/getdocument.action?billnumber=21&billtype=hr&congress=113&format=html) - Background Checks and H.R.138 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/cas/getdocument.action?billnumber=138&billtype=hr&congress=113&format=html) - Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices both cite the commerce clause)

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 02:50 AM
those "thousands" wishing to secede are just that. thousands, in a country of hundreds of millions. many of them signing petitions for states they don't even live in. All of them treasonous, regardless. don't get your hopes up.

gc70
January 7, 2013, 03:41 AM
Back to the original topic, sort of, has there been a court case where someone actually tried to challenge the NFA/GCA/Hughes Amendment? If so, why not? Based on my (admittedly weak) understanding of miller, this would have been a great time to do so, but he died before the decision was made, and never really had his day in court.

Everyone should read The Peculiar Story of United States V. Miller (http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf) to understand how the constitutionality of the NFA was upheld and the Second Amendment was buried for more than half a century. Miller was indicted and tried to plead guilty but the judge would not let him; then the judge dismissed the indictment and declared the NRA unconstitutional (in all of one sentence (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?case=14696530636352836447&q=United+States+v.+Miller,+26+F.+Supp.+1002+%28W.D.+Ark.+1939%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5), no less) in what was widely believed to be an effort to create a test case for SCOTUS. The case went to SCOTUS, where Miller's public defender did not show up or file a brief (but was shortly appointed to the State Senate) and the government predictably prevailed.

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 04:18 AM
Great links, GC70. Thanks!

michaelbsc
January 7, 2013, 04:19 AM
...
The Articles of Confederation were not strong enough to pull the nation together either. So be it, God remains in control. Another quote from Adams that appeals to our times:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511.

Our system of apportionment for seats drives us to two parties, unfortunately.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

http://www.corvallisadvocate.com/2012/1101-multiparty-vs-two-party/

http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html

dom1104
January 7, 2013, 10:51 AM
Wow I wish I had that sort of trust in the government to do whats right.

Our constitution has been run over so many times it is meaningless in modern life.

We are at the whim of big money in Washington.

Good thing the NRA is some serious big money.

303tom
January 7, 2013, 11:33 AM
Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms? They can't!

Have most Americans never read the Constitution? Both sides of this debate seem to assume not only that Congress can, but will, or that they already have banned our right to arms. Congress does not have the power to outlaw our right to arms. Not even close.
First, on a good day Congress can't agree on the simplest things. This last Congress agreed on less than any previous modern Congress. Abolish a fundamental right? No.
Second, even if they did agree on sweeping gun control (which I doubt), it still must over come legal challenge. Heller and Miller are not going to be easy for the gun banners to get around. Feinstein can dream and hope all she wants, but she's not a king and can't outlaw Arms. It will be struck down as unConstitutional.
Third, anything done by this Congress can be undone by the next Congress. The first "AWB" caused them to lose control of Congress, and second would probably do the same. Eventually, there will be an opposition party in control. No party has controlled Congress for more than a few years.

A Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd is such a fantasy that no one in Congress/WH has even suggested it.
The Government is not an all powerfull god/king that can rule and outlaw anything it wants. This is a government of specifically enumerated powers. Despite what the tinfoil crowd may claim, this is still a government of laws.

If I hear one more person mention gun confiscation by Executive Orders I'm going to stuff a copy of the Constitution in thier mouth and choke them with the Supreme Court decisions which limited the Presidents EO's. (i.e. US v Nixon)

The sky is not falling. Stop acting like Chicken Little.

I will remind everyone that the first so-called AWB did not ban the Bushmaster XM15's that have been in the news so much. They couldn't. They didn't, and Congress can't.
Right on Joe..............

GoWolfpack
January 7, 2013, 11:59 AM
The government doesn't have constitutional authority to do most of the things they do currently. That hasn't stopped them yet, and is unlikely to in the future unless a dramatic shift in the voting patterns of John Q. Public forces them out.

joeschmoe
January 7, 2013, 05:01 PM
Who said people assumed that Congress would take any action under the Second Amendment? Congress was not even that naive in 1934.

The 2nd is a restriction upon Congress, not a power. The commerce clause is a power given to Congress. The SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the 2nd Amendment. Congress can't take action "under" the 2nd, or any of the other BOR's.

joeschmoe
January 7, 2013, 05:09 PM
The government doesn't have constitutional authority to do most of the things they do currently. That hasn't stopped them yet, and is unlikely to in the future unless a dramatic shift in the voting patterns of John Q. Public forces them out.
Yes they do. Congress has broad power to regulate commerce, tax, wage war, etc.
What specifically did you mean?
They also have specific restrictions, like the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd is a specific restriction upon the broad powers of Congress. It is not void just because the government has broad powers in other areas.

joeschmoe
January 7, 2013, 05:19 PM
Our constitution has been run over so many times it is meaningless in modern life.


False. You are conceeding the anti's main argument. If they can convince everyone of that then they have won, and our Constitutional Republic would be lost.
It is not true. The Constitution the supreme law of the land. Always has been, always will be.

The same document that gives this government it's powers also restricts it. They don't have any powers without the Constitution or without it's restrictions.

ezkl2230
January 7, 2013, 05:21 PM
Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms? They can't!

Have most Americans never read the Constitution? Both sides of this debate seem to assume not only that Congress can, but will, or that they already have banned our right to arms. Congress does not have the power to outlaw our right to arms. Not even close.
First, on a good day Congress can't agree on the simplest things. This last Congress agreed on less than any previous modern Congress. Abolish a fundamental right? No.
Second, even if they did agree on sweeping gun control (which I doubt), it still must over come legal challenge. Heller and Miller are not going to be easy for the gun banners to get around. Feinstein can dream and hope all she wants, but she's not a king and can't outlaw Arms. It will be struck down as unConstitutional.
Third, anything done by this Congress can be undone by the next Congress. The first "AWB" caused them to lose control of Congress, and second would probably do the same. Eventually, there will be an opposition party in control. No party has controlled Congress for more than a few years.

A Constitutional Amendment to change the 2nd is such a fantasy that no one in Congress/WH has even suggested it.
The Government is not an all powerfull god/king that can rule and outlaw anything it wants. This is a government of specifically enumerated powers. Despite what the tinfoil crowd may claim, this is still a government of laws.

If I hear one more person mention gun confiscation by Executive Orders I'm going to stuff a copy of the Constitution in thier mouth and choke them with the Supreme Court decisions which limited the Presidents EO's. (i.e. US v Nixon)

The sky is not falling. Stop acting like Chicken Little.

I will remind everyone that the first so-called AWB did not ban the Bushmaster XM15's that have been in the news so much. They couldn't. They didn't, and Congress can't.

Your argument has one fundamental flaw - it assumes a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and the limitations it placed on the federal government. The problem is, going all the way back to George Washington, the federal government has held to a federalist interpretation of the Constitution that gives them all the authority they could ever want at the expense of the enumerated rights of the States and the People. And while SCOTUS had more or less upheld limitations on the fed, that will likely change over the next four years because Obama will be appointing 2-3 new justices. You know what that will do to the ideology of SCOTUS.

From the very beginning of our government a war has been fought.

On one side stood Jefferson, Madison, and the Anti-Federalists. They believed (indeed, Jefferson and Madison, the two main authors of the Constitution, explicitly worded the Constitution with these goals in mind) in a small, general purpose government with a set of very clearly defined authorities. Having just won a war against a large, centralized government, they were rightfully concerned about the possibility of seeing a similarly all-powerful, centralized government being established in the US - so much so, that when Jefferson and Madison drafted the Bill of Rights (which passed both the US AND State legislatures with a supermajority), they included these words in the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

On the other side stood Washington and the Federalists. They believed strongly in a centralized, all-powerful government (John Adams actually believed the US needed its own king). Washington's own beliefs regarding the correct interpretation of the Constitution were stated in the circular letter he sent to the governors of the states on the eve of his retirement from public office:

"...to take up the great question which has been frequently agitated (this is a shot at Jefferson and Madison, whom Washington considered to be agitators - added)⎯ whether it be expedient and requisite for the States to delegate a larger proportion of Power to Congress or not ⎯ yet it will be a part of my duty and that of every true Patriot to assert without reserve and to insist upon the following positions:

That unless the States will suffer [permit] Congress to exercise those prerogatives [that] they are undoubtedly invested with by the Constitution [Articles of Confederation], everything must very rapidly tend to Anarchy and confusion;

That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual States that there should be lodged somewhere a Supreme Power [executive] to regulate and govern the general concerns of the Confederated Republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration.

That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance on the part of every State with the late [recent] proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue;

That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independence of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly..."


Washington stood for a centralized, all-powerful government, which, according to his letter, required that the People and the States "...forget their local prejudices and policies, to make those mutual concessions which are requisite to the general prosperity, and in some instances to sacrifice their individual advantages to the interest of the Community." Where the Bill of Rights reserved the majority of powers to the People and the States, Washington called on both entities to concede more of those powers and authorities to the federal government whenever the legislature called upon them to do so. To resist such a request or to take steps to limit (or diminish) the supreme authority of the federal government was a crime that "...will merit the bitterest execration [hatred and contempt] and the severest punishment which can be inflicted by his injured Country." In other words, the Tenth Amendment was to be ignored in favor of the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution. It was Washington who declared during his retirement speech that revolution as a means of changing a tyrannical government was no longer an option since the founding of our republic:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

The meaning was clear: revolting against a monarchy, as HE had done, was a good thing, but the AMENDMENT was the only proper way to effect change in a republic. By taking revolution off the table as a legitimate means of changing a government that had become so corrupt that it could not be changed by means of legislation or amendments, he also nullified the Second Amendment - which was intended by Jefferson and Madison to be a safeguard against a corrupt and tyrannical government.

Sam Adams, eventual governor of Massachusetts, was even more blunt in his opinion of revolting against a republic:

"In monarchies the crime of treason and rebellion may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

Again, it was justified when THEY were the ones resorting to revolution; for anyone else, revolution constitutes treason. The federalist understanding of the Constitution nullifies the Second Amendment, and with it, the right to bear arms for anything but hunting.

And since Washington was the first President of the US, who also appointed the first Supreme Court justices, the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution is the one that became the norm for the government. It is the understanding under which our legislature and the President operate to this day, and it is this hijacked interpretation of the Constitution that permits the federal government to confiscate more of the rights that were Constitutionally enumerated to the PEOPLE whenever the urge hits, all in the name of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and national security.

No, the problem we face today is the direct result of the federalist interpretation of the Constitution that was institutionalized by none other than George Washington himself. That our nation's capitol is named for Washington is appropriate; his interpretation of the Constitution set the stage for what is happening today. The resulting mess is his to own forever. Unless we can find a way to bring our government in line with a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, they will eventually FIND a way to ban firearms.

joeschmoe
January 7, 2013, 05:34 PM
Your argument has one fundamental flaw - it assumes a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and the limitations it placed on the federal government. The problem is, going all the way back to George Washington, the federal government has held to a federalist interpretation of the Constitution that gives them all the authority they could ever want at the expense of the enumerated rights of the States and the People. And while SCOTUS had more or less upheld limitations on the fed, that will likely change over the next four years because Obama will be appointing 2-3 new justices. You know what that will do to the ideology of SCOTUS.

From the very beginning of our government a war has been fought.

On one side stood Jefferson, Madison, and the Anti-Federalists.

No. This is not a fed vs state issue. The fed has always had plenty of power and restrictions. This is not new territory either. The SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the 2nd and limited the fed. That is the point of this thread. Feinstein can't get around the 2nd Amendment, she didn't in the last "AWB", and she won't on the next try.
All this moonbat howling that the Constitution is dead does not jive with history.
The anti's are the one's claiming the 2nd has no meaning, but the Courts, Congress and history do not support that claim.

It's as if everyone has already forgotten the Heller and McDonald cases.

TNboy
January 7, 2013, 05:43 PM
I can only hope that you are right JOESCHMOE, but my observations are that the gun grabbers don't really care what the Constitution says. They seems to just do whatever they want. Feinstein has already said that she would like to confiscate every gun in America. Although it will not happen anytime soon you see what is on the agenda of these people. There method for depriving us for our arms will be gradual.

ezkl2230
January 7, 2013, 05:46 PM
No. This is not a fed vs state issue. The fed has always had plenty of power and restrictions. This is not new territory either. The SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the 2nd and limited the fed. That is the point of this thread. Feinstein can't get around the 2nd Amendment, she didn't in the last "AWB", and she won't on the next try.
All this moonbat howling that the Constitution is dead does not jive with history.
The anti's are the one's claiming the 2nd has no meaning, but the Courts, Congress and history do not support that claim.

It's as if everyone has already forgotten the Heller and McDonald cases.
No, I haven't forgotten Heller or McDonald, or the more recent Woollard v. Sheridan appeals court case that actually expanded Heller. I also didn't say it is a fed v state case. I said it is a case of how the Constitution is interpreted. The federal government, under the federalist understanding of the Constitution, doesn't recognize Constitutional limits any longer, and it is just a matter of time before SCOTUS is changed to the point where they also fully support that interpretation as well. It is a question of who frames the debate and the interpretation of the Constitution. The side that frames the debate eventually wins the debate - and the interpretation of the Constitution that will define the federal government. I am the last one to say that the Constitution is dead. However, it is being twisted to say things that were never intended, to give powers that were never enumerated (such as the unConstitutional executive order), and to nullify portions of the Constitution by which the government no longer wishes to be bound without amending it as demanded by the Constitution. That is the reality of the war that is being fought. And unless we can get the government to change its interpretation of the Constitution, it is only a matter of time before it finds a way to give itself all the power it wants.

sessumrd
January 7, 2013, 05:51 PM
Joeblow...., it isn't about the constitution, as this is violated regularly by our elected officials, where their actions are contested in court regularly. 1 or 2 more liberal Supreme Court appointments and all bets are off, as they will then tell us what the law is... Regulation....tax....regulation....tax...sound familiar...??

dom1104
January 7, 2013, 06:31 PM
You live in a very secure black and white world joeschmoe.

It would be great if real life worked out that way.

Once a few more years go by, we all get a little older, and a few more SCOTUS justices are appointed by Obama, you will see just how inconsequential the constitution is to those in power.

joeschmoe
January 7, 2013, 07:30 PM
The federal government, under the federalist understanding of the Constitution, doesn't recognize Constitutional limits any longer
Did you actually read any of Heller?
Where do you guys get this stuff?

"Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28
"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Guilty
January 7, 2013, 07:59 PM
I don't think any type of gun ban or magazine capacity ban can pass Congress easily. I do think that we have a President that believes he is above the law. I would not put it past the Obama administration to somehow use Presidential Executive Order to create a gun ban or magazine capacity ban.

Here is my argument. If the President issues an Executive Order, it would take an act of Congress to refute the Executive Order or the Supreme Court would have to to deem the Executive Order unconstitutional. But the damage would already be done since undoing the Executive Order would take time. Look at previous Executive Orders that President Obama has issued, Libya for example. Congress was irrelevant.

The Democrats will back President Obama, even if the Executive Order is unconstitutional. The Democrats in the Senate will not pass a bill to refute the Executive Order and the House would become irrelevant at this point. Am I wrong with my argument?

Alaska444
January 7, 2013, 08:02 PM
False. You are conceeding the anti's main argument. If they can convince everyone of that then they have won, and our Constitutional Republic would be lost.
It is not true. The Constitution the supreme law of the land. Always has been, always will be.

The same document that gives this government it's powers also restricts it. They don't have any powers without the Constitution or without it's restrictions.
Who said that they won? Just stating the state of the union so to speak is not conceding victory to them.

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 08:29 PM
I do think that we have a President that believes he is above the law. I would not put it past the Obama administration to somehow use Presidential Executive Order to create a gun ban or magazine capacity ban.


that implies that there is anyone who would actually enforce such an order... any president might say and do what they please, but it doesn't mean that people will obey illegal orders. The current president is only continuing down the road that the previous president (and the previous congress and the courts through their inaction) laid out for him and those who will follow. It's what happens when people go about like cowards, thinking government torture and spying on fellow citizens is going to make them safer.

Carl N. Brown
January 7, 2013, 08:43 PM
It was called the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban for grins and giggles, hunh.

anchorman
January 7, 2013, 08:45 PM
seeing as how they didn't actually ban anyone from owning or transferring these guns, I wouldn't really call it a ban. it was a pretty stupid effort, though.

r1derbike
January 7, 2013, 11:44 PM
All I know, is all this arguing and divisiveness is exactly what the grabbers are hoping for. It will avert attention long enough for them to uncloak their daggers and pens, then slash and sign bills to take their place before we have enough time to dispute what they have done, let alone argue in court their legality.

Vigilance, one eye open at night, cut them off at the pass. I hope this whole affair doesn't slip under the radar. Instead of our government acting like wolves circling their prey, we should be circling the government, as we've seen and heard what they are going to do. They are openly bragging about it!

What part of this administration doesn't play by the rules does anyone not understand?

powderx
January 8, 2013, 12:02 AM
Agree with schmoe that panic isn't good and can be used as schmoe posits. We've seen this many times on other fronts. This isn't to say there's no fight to be had and its not to say that everyone is in a panic. But a LOT of folks on these boards reek of panic. Don't let them smell fear.

Tizona
January 8, 2013, 12:05 AM
There is a LOT of misinformation in this thread.

Wow.

Tizona

RP88
January 8, 2013, 12:33 AM
They cannot really ban the weapons, in any sense.

They probably cannot even limit mag caps because that could be construed as limiting the common-use weapon itself.

Their only real shot is to incrementally work up to registering all firearms, and taxing them and making waiting periods mandatory.

unfortunately, I think they could achieve the aforementioned within a foreseeable future.

However, they would need a crap-ton of money to waste in order to register even a fraction of the weapons that people have been buying up since 2008.

every year has been a bigger historical number of gun sales than the last by a terrifyingly disparate amount. They would never be able to confiscate them, buy them back, or register them severely without wasting money that is just not there for such frivolous endeavors. And, let's be honest: if the Canadians had a majority non-compliance rate to their gun registry, how bad do you think such a thing would go here?

I know, I know. Blind faith in the American spirit and the sense of justice that has been decimated by apathy and poor decision-making, and all that aside, I just don't see them coming out of this without losing more than they stand to take, and with no results to show for any of it. It's pointless from a financial and statistical perspective. I feel like this is all to make someone feel good and make someone else feel guilty without any expected results.

Alaska444
January 8, 2013, 12:40 AM
Agree with schmoe that panic isn't good and can be used as schmoe posits. We've seen this many times on other fronts. This isn't to say there's no fight to be had and its not to say that everyone is in a panic. But a LOT of folks on these boards reek of panic. Don't let them smell fear.
Since when is it "panic" to simply acknowledge what we are up against?

joeschmoe
January 8, 2013, 02:20 AM
Since when is it "panic" to simply acknowledge what we are up against?
Search here, or google, for the words "ban" or "confiscate". Gun owners have gone completely chicken little panic mode.
There will be no ban, there will be no confiscation. Feinstien knows it. Her goal is incremental. The "panic" helps her to achieve that.

1911 guy
January 8, 2013, 02:35 AM
Quote:
Search here, or google, for the words "ban" or "confiscate". Gun owners have gone completely chicken little panic mode.
There will be no ban, there will be no confiscation. Feinstien knows it. Her goal is incremental. The "panic" helps her to achieve that.

Sure, there are a lot of folks over reacting in the short term.

However...

Knowing that the ultimate goal is confiscation through incrementalism, how is it wrong to fight against that now?

Should a cow headed down the chute start fighting from the start or wait until it's at the slaughterhouse door?

anchorman
January 8, 2013, 02:36 AM
I doubt any panic is going to help her confiscate guns, incrementally or not. I really don't think feinstein and company get it. Whether they think can whittle away at them slowly, or all at once, I don't think they understand the meaning of 300 million. I can't picture the meaning of 300 million anything, except that it's A LOT. Already, I don't see how they could possibly set up the bureaucracy to track and register, let alone round so many guns.

1911 guy
January 8, 2013, 02:39 AM
We don't have 300 million. Hell, we can't get the entire membership of The High Road to agree that any infringement is unacceptable.

If you doubt the incremental approach, you haven't been paying attention to the rest of the Western Hemisphere in the last seventy years.

anchorman
January 8, 2013, 02:45 AM
if they managed to take 300,000 guns per year, it would still take them 1000 years to take them all. I have no idea how many could be rounded up at once if someone were to try, but I do know that it would take more effort than most people are willing to commit to.

Bobson
January 8, 2013, 02:49 AM
Other than the fact that certain guns, types of ammo, and gun parts/accessories are incredibly difficult to find at present, what real problem is there with gun owners being scared of losing their rights? Feinstein and Friends aren't great white sharks fueled by the fear as though it were blood in the water. Fear, rational or not, isn't going to help any laws be passed.

On the contrary, if every gun owner in America is scared enough to speak up for the first time in their lives, Congressmen all over America are going to hear from more people on one specific issue than they ever have before. Outstanding!

1911 guy
January 8, 2013, 02:54 AM
Agreed. Panic is never a good response, but a well placed fear may prompt some into action that had never considered it before. And that is, in the words of Bobson, "Outstanding".

Alaska444
January 8, 2013, 03:06 AM
You really shouldn't try to speak in a reasonable manner, they will only call you paranoid for sure by pointing out the obvious.:what:

It is really ridiculous to postulate historical references of government usurping power as being some sort of diatribe on mass paranoia.

If you want to live in lalaland and believe that these folks in political power that completely disregard the rule of law couldn't do whatever they feel like doing, go ahead. The rest of us will live in reality and understand some simple truths. Many in office in Washington D.C. have long since abrogated their oath to protect and defend the constitution a long time ago.

anchorman
January 8, 2013, 03:07 AM
If you doubt the incremental approach, you haven't been paying attention to the rest of the Western Hemisphere in the last seventy years.

The rest of the western hemisphere don't have the sheer volume of guns nor the number of owners/enthusiasts that we do. They don't have a 2nd amendment type guarantee for the most part. Most didn't have the sheer number of people who participate daily in Concealed carry, nor the tradition of hunting that we do. in most of western europe, hunting was and is for rich people. they will always have that, and it will always be prohibitively expensive for common folks to enjoy, which helps keep gun ownership down. Most of the rest of the world don't have the wealth, the leisure time if they have the wide open spaces to enjoy guns for sport as we do. I don't necessarily believe in american exceptionalism, as we've been in a pretty sorry state politically, socially, and economically (as far as most of us common folk go) for 30-40 years now. But we are unique among nations, I'll give us that. And I don't think there is going to be any more gun control, at least not in a way that interrupts our lives. There may be requirement for background checks on private sales, there may be safe storage requirements (hopefully reasonable). I don't see magazine limits, nor assault weapons bans passing. It's simply not popular enough amongst the people to do so, and given how few people actually bother to vote, there will be a rout in the next election of whomever votes for such nonsense.

as to SCOTUS, I don't think people here should worry too much about the balance being upset. for the most part, the people of retirement age are more left leaning. Whatever replacements obama makes will be for ginsberg and souter, possibly kennedy, if he decides to quit early. I don't see scalia quitting in the next 4 years, unless he dies in office. He's way too partisan to give up with a democrat in the white house. And then one has to pay attention to the fact that sometimes these people don't operate the way one would expect. A few of the more left leaning justices in recent times were appointed under conservative republican presidents. And on top of that, one must remember that so called liberals and conservatives are not monolithic groups. Gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters come in all shapes and sizes, from all different backgrounds.

1911 guy
January 8, 2013, 03:31 AM
Alaska444, sarcasm does not become you. Well, yeah it does, but some with their heads in the sand just won't get it.

Anchorman, I'll happily send you some history books that will categorically refute just about everything you just posted.

Germany, austria and other surrounding germanic nations had a very strong firearms culture, to the extent that Austria even has a national holiday revolving around rifle marksmanship and related contests. Gun ownership was hardly the rare thing you seem to assume it was.

As for leisure time and expendable income, prior to the collapse of the Weimar Republic, what we now know as Germany had the leading economy in the world and everyone else, including he good ol' U.S. of A looked to them for innovations in manufacturing and science. Of course, all that was finally remedied once and for all by the democratic election of Adolph Hitler to the Chancellorship.

Do we want to look at England, too? While their hunting traditions did differ greatly from our own, it was not a pastime reserved only for the wealthy. Just like here, money helps procure more opportunity, but many estates were open to hunting for a fee, just like game leases are here, or even guided hunts. The only thing differentiating them from us is our national and state park and reserve system, which allows free public access. Gun ownership was not restricted "much at all" until the socialist labor party took power in the late seventies or early eighties. Then "not much at all" turned into a nightmare of epic proportions.

Or maybe France? How were all those poor unarmed farmers able to fight the revolution and put the kings head on a platter? And mount a resistance to Nazi occupation before the rest of the world began sending aid? They were armed.

Then there's the most recent example of Australia. We've got members on this very board who lament their own complacency in dealing with "reasonable" gun control when it first gained a foothold in the nineties. Millions upon millions of rifles, shotguns and handguns were confiscated.

While I agree that we as Americans are not exceptional by any "chosen people" way, we have been exceptional in our resolve to jealously guard our freedoms. Until now.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 8, 2013, 05:05 AM
joeschmoe: you're both right and wrong. You are correct that incrementalism is their primary weapon. They take just enough as they can to continue to seem "reasonable" for the time being, as they know taking too much* at once could be the end of their jobs. The current Feinstein AWB is such a classic trick it should be obvious. Just like any used car salesman or junk dealer sets the price on something far higher than he knows it's worth, just so he can be "talked down" to a more reasonable price. The buyer then feels like he's getting a real deal and that he won something, even though the shady seller planned on lowering the price all along. It's a classic sellers tactic. High-ball the price and then come down to the price you really planned on all along. Feinstein proposes this massively unrealistic and imposing bill that we freak out about. Then a short while later a more "reasonable" bill is proposed so that it can look like they're compromising. When they're still really just taking something and we're getting nothing in return. Getting robbed of $5 instead of $100 is not a win for you. Losing less than you thought you might is not a gain. We need to pay VERY close attention to the bills and proposals that are coming out after the Feinstein proposal. That's their real game.

*But you're wrong that they just "can't". You're right, they don't have the legal authority to ban all guns. But neither does a criminal have the legal authority to steal from your house. That doesn't stop them from trying and succeeding. They're only stopped after the fact if they get caught. A successful robbery is a successful robbery, whether it was legally prohibited or not. And similarly, the Feds do indeed have the ability to ban guns if they choose. They can physically type out a bill, physically vote on and pass the bill, and the physically send out orders to their agencies to enforce the bill. And with enough agents willing to go along with it, they can certainly make it happen. A SCOTUS ruling would only make it illegal far after the fact. Just like a cop catching a thief weeks after a crime. The SCOTUS being able to deem a bill unConstitutional only matters after the bill is passed and enforced. Only then can it be brought to their attention through a long process. And by then the damage could very well be done. hso made some very good points about gun dealers and distributors going out of business whether a bill is found to be legal after the fact or not.

Don't confuse their lack of Constitutional authority with a lack of desire or physical ability.


Anchorman, 1911 guy, othera: It is somewhat correct that this is not a Left/Right, Democrat/Republican issue. But it IS an authoritarian/libertarian(small L) issue, and even an individualist/collectivist issue. The right to own firearms for the defense of yourself, your family, and your freedom is very much an individual liberty. Collectivists are opposed to this because they see individuals as cogs in the greater social machine. Police and soldiers who are selected and mandated by the "People" are the ones who should be carrying guns, not you the individual. And authoritarians see firearms use as very dangerous to their own machinations. An armed people is not a people easily subjugated. But there is a "correlation not causation" factor in this. One cannot deny that members of a certain political party vote against gun rights more often than the other. That is just fact backed up by public voting records. Did they vote this way because of their party? Just as are all members of a party in favor of or opposed to gun control because of their party? No. Correlation, not causation. But the mindset that pushes one towards their political leanings also influences their individual policy choices. Someone who is very much in favor of individual rights, personal responsibility, and smaller government controls over the people would find gun control deplorable. Whereas a collectivist and authoritarian sees gun control as essential because it makes it easier to fit individuals into their mandated place in greater society. These people are also the ones who see government solutions to many many other issues as favorable. So no, it is not a "Democrat/Republican" issues per se, but it is no coincidence that certain mindsets, such as learning more towards collectivism vs. individualism, are found in large amounts on one side of the spectrum vs. another. The use of lethal force is the final physical act in enforcing ones will. The individualist sees an individual enforcing their own will through the individual use of arms as paramount. The collectivist sees the collective will being enforced through agents of the collective society, police and military, as paramount. But it still comes down to whether one sees the individual as a sovereign end of his own, or just a component means to a collective end. The rhetoric spouted by one end of the political spectrum vs. the other can easily demonstrate these views. Collectivists spout views and champion legislation that places the collective good first. Individualists do the same but with legislation that places the individual will first. The fact that the political party platforms tend to fall along these same lines is easily seen, and quite telling

Alaska444
January 8, 2013, 02:34 PM
Hmm, the news today is that the White House will move quickly on gun control through a combination of legislative and executive order actions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/white-house-ramps-up-talks-on-gun-control-measures/

So much for the constitutional protections folks keep believing are still in place. The president can do a complete end run around all of the constitutional provisions with an executive order just like he did with the immigration issue for instance. I take him at his word that he will move by the end of this month.

Overturning an executive order is nearly impossible today:

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[8] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."[9] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

razorback2003
January 8, 2013, 02:52 PM
We must continue to pressure Congress and especially the House Speaker. This deal can never reach a floor vote without the House Speakers go ahead to take it out of committee.

I believe we have better numbers of pro gun people in Congress today than in 1994. The AWB in 94 passed by just one or two votes in the House.

mljdeckard
January 8, 2013, 02:58 PM
With a dem majority and a sunset clause. Very few people owned AR then compared to now.

joeschmoe
January 8, 2013, 04:51 PM
The issue is simple.

Do you believe that Congress has the power to ban Arms? Yes or no?

I say no. They lack the power to do so and will fail in their attempt for the reasons I listed in my OP. Further, I believe they know it and won't try, thier goal is incremental.

It is truly sad how many Americans think the President is a king who can issue EO to ban arms, rewrite the Constitution or confiscate thier property. Or believe that Congress has the power to do such things.
They don't. Never had it, never will.

Alaska444
January 8, 2013, 05:38 PM
The issue is simple.

Do you believe that Congress has the power to ban Arms? Yes or no?

I say no. They lack the power to do so and will fail in their attempt for the reasons I listed in my OP. Further, I believe they know it and won't try, thier goal is incremental.

It is truly sad how many Americans think the President is a king who can issue EO to ban arms, rewrite the Constitution or confiscate thier property. Or believe that Congress has the power to do such things.
They don't. Never had it, never will.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you really need to read the news for the last four years. Obama has over and over again done things that he was not supposed by the constitution.

In any case, EO can only effectively be overturned by another sitting president. Look up the Dream Act and then look at Obama's EO a few months ago. Yes, yes, he can't do anything at all.

anchorman
January 8, 2013, 05:44 PM
please don't limit anything to the past four years. the previous president did this too. your argument looses any credibility when you only are upset about what this guy is doing and not upset about when the previous guy did the same for reasons that you approved of.

Alaska444
January 8, 2013, 05:49 PM
please don't limit anything to the past four years. the previous president did this too. your argument looses any credibility when you only are upset about what this guy is doing and not upset about when the previous guy did the same for reasons that you approved of.
Who states I don't take that into account my friend. However, simple fact, that is time past and they are no longer president, Obama is.

Once again, I have already answered this charge from you in several other posts.

anchorman
January 8, 2013, 06:09 PM
Anchorman, 1911 guy, othera: It is somewhat correct that this is not a Left/Right, Democrat/Republican issue. But it IS an authoritarian/libertarian(small L) issue, and even an individualist/collectivist issue.

I guess my deeper point is that it is not so cut an dry. I am a collectivist in some realms, an individualist in others. It's rare that you find anyone 100% one or the other in all aspects of life. many people who consider themselves individualists are actually authoritarians when it comes to their home life, and dealing with their wife and kids. many people who consider themselves collectivists are individualists when it comes to the right to self defense, or the right to drink alcohol. These things take as many forms as there are people. If members here on THR and other gun forums keep talking about this in simplistic political terms, we alienate people who would otherwise be allies. I know, more people who identify as "conservatives" and vote republican tend to be in favor of gun rights more than others. But every time I read something here or elsewhere about "dirty liberal blah blah blah" I am taken aback. I don't take it too personally, but it is tiresome as an advocate of the 2A (and the rest of the constitution) to have people constantly attacking for my other beliefs, when I am in a place where we are nominally here to talk about the RKBA for defense of family, home and country, and enjoyment of shooting sports/hunting. I wonder how many people don't feel comfortable engaging in the gun community (if you can call it that), because they don't like constantly reading disparaging remarks about their other political beliefs? This isn't about whether you are for or against social welfare and affirmative action, this isn't about wether you think government has a role in regulating business or not, this isn't about whether you think pray in public school is a good idea or not.

It is about recognizing that all else aside, when the shtf, or when you are in dark alley or in broad daylight getting attacked, when someone comes into your house at night without being welcomed in, that you have a right to take care of that situation before it escalates to the point where you aren't going to do anything ever again. It's pretty basic. And the more people feel the need to drag their other beliefs out and put them on parade, the more people are divided and the easier it is for the anti gun types to push their agenda. I write this with the hope that some of the more vocal "conservatives" here, might understand that though they are represented in larger numbers, there are many friends and allies to be made if we leave the other baggage at home and stop with the damning talk about "liberals".

joeschmoe
January 8, 2013, 06:21 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you really need to read the news for the last four years. Obama has over and over again done things that he was not supposed by the constitution.
But you can't seem to cite any of this for us? What did he do that "he was not supposed by the constitution"? Any thing specific like abolishing a fundamental right? The question was Congress, but no POTUS can't abolish a fundamental right either. He hasn't, they can't. Read the Constitution. It is still the law of this land and has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
In any case, EO can only effectively be overturned by another sitting president. Look up the Dream Act and then look at Obama's EO a few months ago. Yes, yes, he can't do anything at all.

How does that viotate the Constitution? What section and paragraph should I look up?
How does the Dream Act effect our fundamental right to arms?

So you do believe the President is a king that can use EO to ban/confiscate our arms? How about Congress?

Alaska444
January 8, 2013, 06:25 PM
But you can't seem to cite any of this for us? What did he do that "he was not supposed by the constitution"? Any thing specific like abolishing a fundamental right? The question was Congress, but no POTUS can't abolish a fundamental right either. He hasn't, they can't. Read the Constitution. It is still the law of this land and has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

How does that viotate the Constitution? What section and paragraph should I look up?
How does the Dream Act effect our fundamental right to arms?

So you do believe the President is a king that can use EO to ban/confiscate our arms? How about Congress?
Have a great day, believe as you wish my friend. Take care.

BobTheTomato
January 8, 2013, 06:34 PM
Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms? They can't!

People assume that they can because that is what the national government has done for the last 100 or so years. The courts are appointed by the government and have changed to go along with this idea that government can do whatever it wants. An amendment was required to ban the sale and mfg of alcohol. Drugs were banned with a law not an amendment. Why did something change? Not the founding laws but the beliefs of the people and who they elected.

So why do they assume they can? They assume they can because they have been taught the government exists to provide for them. They look to the government when something happens and demand answers. I could go on and on but you get the idea. They will still get elected and there are very few judges in high positions who are actual constitutionalists. I mean you don't get appointed unless you will support a big government agenda.

Ragnar Danneskjold
January 8, 2013, 06:46 PM
anchorman, I think those people you are referring to are anomolies. Most collectivists who are in favor of for instance, government controlled health care, are also in favor of keep police as the ones with the guns. They see the government health department as responsible for keeping society healthy, and the police as responsible as keeping people safe. It all comes down to a "do this for me" attitude. Each aspect of life being handled by a specific government agency on behalf of a society as a whole, not on the individual level with individual choices and responsibility. The converse is also true. I want to be responsible for my own health. I don't want you to be responsible for it, and I don't want to be responsible for yours. I also want to be responsible for my own safety. I don't want you to be responsible for it, and I don't want to be responsible for yours. We already have police to handle safety emergencies and Emergency Rooms to handle medical emergencies. But everything that falls outside the scope of those last-ditch services should be up to the individual and only the individual. I won't demand you pay for me, and I refuse to pay for you. Cops, 911, and ERs is what I feel is the "just right" amount of government social services. Just enough to keep away anarchy and people bleeding to death. But beyond that, it's an individual issue. Guns, healthcare, what car I drive, light-bulbs I use, etc. All should be individual choice, and in no way shae or form controlled, regulated, mandated, or paid for by the public. Because "the public" really just means us. You making me pay for you. I'm sorry, but I refuse.

ETXhiker
January 8, 2013, 06:54 PM
We all know what the Constitution says, but this administration pees all over it on a daily basis. They are not limited by law, but only by their perception of how much they can get away with. If they go for registration, it will be gut check time for every gun owner, because it WILL lead to confiscation. The next several weeks should tell us how powerful Feinstein and her bunch really feel. Hope for the best, but expect the worst, is my assessment. Underestimate these fools at your own peril.

anchorman
January 8, 2013, 07:07 PM
anchorman, I think those people you are referring to are anomolies.

I think you would be extremely surprised at how many people there are out there who, when it comes down to it, recognize the inherent right to defend oneself from aggression. sure it's nice if the cops come, but most people, when it comes down to it, don't want to be the one that the cops are photographing and picking up off of the pavement.

People are much more complex in their opinions and attitudes about both individual and social responsibilities and rights than many people who self identify as conservatives would believe. I'm going to throw this out there (despite my best judgement), that most conservatives don't see this because it doesn't fit with their basic world view. It seems from my interactions with them in all aspects of life that most people who identify as conservatives see things in binary terms, good/evil, black/white. It reduces the complexity of what one sees to understandable, easy to categorize terms, but it doesn't make what one sees necessarily reflect reality.


again, not interested in conversations about the limits of government, and what services that you want to pay for... I am more interested in opening eyes to see that there are many allies in what may seem to some like unlikely places. I am not special, I am not unique in my views on this, I am definitely not an anomaly when it comes to my views on RKBA. I'd say that most of the people I associate with would be considered "liberal" by many. Of them (rough estimates), only about 1/4 are hardcore anti-gun, about half are on the fence, and could be swayed, and about 1/4 are hardcore pro RKBA (or at least lean that way). And I know a LOT of people. maybe it's because I live in the deep south? or maybe it's because more people actually agree with us on guns than one would imagine?

Alaska444
January 8, 2013, 07:11 PM
I think you would be extremely surprised at how many people there are out there who, when it comes down to it, recognize the inherent right to defend oneself from aggression. sure it's nice if the cops come, but most people, when it comes down to it, don't want to be the one that the cops are photographing and picking up off of the pavement.

People are much more complex in their opinions and attitudes about both individual and social responsibilities and rights than many people who self identify as conservatives would believe. I'm going to throw this out there (despite my best judgement), that most conservatives don't see this because it doesn't fit with their basic world view. It seems from my interactions with them in all aspects of life that most people who identify as conservatives see things in binary terms, good/evil, black/white. It reduces the complexity of what one sees to understandable, easy to categorize terms, but it doesn't make what one sees necessarily reflect reality.


again, not interested in conversations about the limits of government, and what services that you want to pay for... I am more interested in opening eyes to see that there are many allies in what may seem to some like unlikely places. I am not special, I am not unique in my views on this, I am definitely not an anomaly when it comes to my views on RKBA. I'd say that most of the people I associate with would be considered "liberal" by many. Of them (rough estimates), only about 1/4 are hardcore anti-gun, about half are on the fence, and could be swayed, and about 1/4 are hardcore pro RKBA (or at least lean that way). And I know a LOT of people. maybe it's because I live in the deep south? or maybe it's because more people actually agree with us on guns than one would imagine?
Dear Anchorman,

No one disputes that many democrats own guns and cherish the 2A. That is not at all the issue when it comes to what congress or Obama can or can't do. Once again, congress and the president approved Obamacare against the wishes of the majority of the population. If Obama moves unilaterally with an EO of some type redefining existing law, what political coalition will stop that?

Queen_of_Thunder
January 8, 2013, 07:27 PM
Congress can do what they want and by the time it goes back through the Courts again we will be throwing rocks.

anchorman
January 8, 2013, 07:31 PM
Dear Anchorman,

No one disputes that many democrats own guns and cherish the 2A. That is not at all the issue when it comes to what congress or Obama can or can't do. Once again, congress and the president approved Obamacare against the wishes of the majority of the population. If Obama moves unilaterally with an EO of some type redefining existing law, what political coalition will stop that?

Actually many people dispute the fact that many liberals cherish their fundamental human right to keep and bear arms. you may not see it, but the "liberal bashing" when it comes to this stuff is a little out of hand. Please don't change this to "democrats". I'm not talking party affiliation, as. there are vocal anti gun people on both sides of the Aisle. the "brady bunch" are all republicans. certain democrats are also virulently anti gun and anti 2A. I'm sorry there are some hypocrites in government, who think protection is good for them, but not for us. Let's do what we can to make sure that they don't prevail.

"obamacare" was found to be mostly constitutional regardless of whether you liked the decision. what fundamental right is being violated by it? why are you worried about it? (these are rhetorical questions for you to think about, no need to answer). No other country in the world has a healthcare system as perverse and inefficient as the one we got ourselves into over the last 80 years. I'd be surprised if you're not thankful when something better comes along. I don't know if you are of medicare age, but I hope if you are against gov't healthcare, that you refuse to accept treatment paid for with gov't money.

There is no comparison between obamacare and our fundamental RKBA. 74% of the us population is AGAINST a handgun ban. think about that for a minute. that's a LOT of people in favor of RKBA on some level. as to obamacare, it is hated on one side for being a democratic initiative, and overreach of government, and on the other for not being socialized medicine. When asked about individual parts of it, it is pretty well universally liked, however. no one wants pre-existing conditions for example. In the end, people will probably see that it is better than the ridiculous system that we have had where insurance companies decide what care your doctor gives, and even who your doctor is. Both parties in congress use whatever tactics they can to push their legislation. Stay vigilant, and make them pay for it next election if they pass something you don't like. If we stay vigilant now, there won't be anything passed in the first place. They've already proven they can't play nice, even when the full faith and credit of the US gov't is on the line, why would they work together to pass ridiculous gun control, especially if the people don't want it?

Al Thompson
January 8, 2013, 07:32 PM
Argument's getting a bit circular.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms?They can't!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!