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

BCCL said:

Why did it take a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but doesn't to ban guns?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

TennJed said:

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

Click to expand...

Exactly, it didn't work very well with Obamacare waiting for SCOTUS to do the right thing.

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.

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.

Alaska444 said:

Exactly, it didn't work very well with Obamacare waiting for SCOTUS to do the right thing.

Click to expand...

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.

-v- said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

anchorman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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/rickung...ange-his-obamacare-vote-at-the-eleventh-hour/

Have a great night.

I think we all know how the much the 'Constitutionality' of a law matters......history proves the Anti-Federalists to be right.

Alaska444 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

arizona_cards_11 said:

I think we all know how the much the 'Constitutionality' of a law matters......history proves the Anti-Federalists to be right.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

arizona_cards_11 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

anchorman said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

joeschmoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Bet on it!


Learn from it!


Believe it!