Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Constitutional Basis for Bans

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Rio Laxas, Nov 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rio Laxas

    Rio Laxas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Texas
    I was reading a thread the yesterday, which I can no longer find, that was talking about how the NFA was enacted because elected officials did not feel that they had the power to ban things, only to tax them. So they tried to tax them out of existance. Well, obviously the reasoning changed somewhere along the way. Why? What is the supposed basis given for the constitutionality of any kind of a federal ban?

    Using "assault weapons" as an example, how could they ban an "assault weapon" that is not part of interstate commerce? If a company made "assault weapons" only for in state purchase, would that be subject to a ban? How could any ATF regulation apply to any kind of firearm not involved in interstate commerce for that matter?

    Using drugs as an example, how could the federal government stop states like California from legalizing certain drugs? I haven't paid that much attention to that whole battle, so I am short on facts, but it seems to me that the federal government cannot do anything about drugs made and consumed in a state, so long as it doesn't conflict with state law.

    I do not wish to discuss the merits or demerits of any of the above bans, just the rationale used to create them.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2008
  2. deadin

    deadin Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,123
    Location:
    Ocean Shores, WA
    Any number of Federal laws and rules probably wouldn't stand up to strict Constitutional scrunity, however, it takes money, lots of money, to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. (And, of course, there is no guarantee that SCOTUS will agree with your interpretation of the law in question. In that case, you are SOL until the mix of justices changes. Then you can start all over again. (With lots more money.))

    One way the Federal Gov can enforce their wishes is to turn off the money spigot that goes to a State that doesn't toe the line.
     
  3. wahsben

    wahsben Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    The rational of the bans is that the elitists want to control us.
    The COTUS means nothing to them.
    As the saying goes "it's not about gun control, it's about control."
     
  4. Frog48

    Frog48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    Some of the most commonly cited:

    1. Taxation and Spending Clause
    2. General Welfare Clause
    3. Necessary and Proper Clause
    4. Interstate Commerce Clause

    In reality, none of these clauses explicitly authorize Congress to enact alot of the legislation that they come up with, but politicians are masters of BS'ing and fabricating bizarre, convoluted justifications for what they do.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2008
  5. Rio Laxas

    Rio Laxas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Texas
    One comment that was brought up in the other thread was that elected officials felt it was required of them to enact a constitutional amendment in order to ban alcohol during prohibition. I would think any other kind of federal ban would be subject to the same scrutiny.
     
  6. Frog48

    Frog48 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,201
    Location:
    Somewhere down in Texas
    Times have changed. Back in the day, people genuinely respected the Constitution. Nowadays, many merely pay it lip service, and otherwise hold it in disdain.
     
  7. MagnumDweeb

    MagnumDweeb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,344
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Lot of folks nowadays who look at the government as nothing more than the means by which the elite control the masses. Look at NAFTA and how the number of billionares in this country grew by more than a 100 times yet millions of jobs were lost and we went even farther from being a manufacturing nation to being a self-service consumer driven nation, thank Slick Willy you useless liberal. The government is showing more and more not to be of the people for the people. Do we really need all those useless billionares who produce nothing, and surely don't invent nothing, if they were all to disappear how much deflation (the dollar gaining value) and employment growth would occur.

    The Constitution is dying in my opinion and so is the people's love for it.
     
  8. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Oklahio
    The "elastic clause" would probably be how they'd justify it.
     
  9. onebigelf

    onebigelf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    419
    On the question of drugs. It is interesting that it required a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol, but not to ban drugs, or guns for that matter- despite Constitutional protection for firearms. They twist law to suit themselves and as long as they make a good argument for the mob that they are doing the "right thing" they get away with it. So far...

    John
     
  10. Rio Laxas

    Rio Laxas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Texas
    I took a look at the text of the previous AWB, and I could not find a passage where a constitutional justification was stated. Seems like that should be in the opening paragraph of any bill before congress. "Here's what we want to do and this portion of the constitution gives us the power to do so."
     
  11. Cyborg

    Cyborg Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Messages:
    193
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    "Constitutional Basis for Bans"???

    "Constitutional Basis"????????????
    Amigo, they don't need no steenking constitutional basis. All they need is a pretext to act. Since whatever they come up with is self-evidently the right thing to do it MUST be constitutional.

    But I am a cynic.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Burying your head in the sand only makes your a** a better target - PLUS it makes it kinda hard to breathe. ;)
     
  12. 30mag

    30mag Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    671
    Location:
    Where West meets South, Texas
    I agree, there is a complete lack of constitutional basis for gun bans.

    I think also that there is probably a lack of constitutional basis for not allowing felons to own firearms.
    However, I am not familiar with felony crimes.
     
  13. MountainBear

    MountainBear Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Oregon
    There is not a lack of basis for it. It all goes to interpretation. I have absolutely no doubt that the people who push such legislation read the second amendment and the general welfare clause as constitutional justification for their agenda.
    What we need to do is continue to work to get officials elected and justices appointed who will continue to interpret these words in the manner which we think they were meant by the founding fathers.
     
  14. Rio Laxas

    Rio Laxas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Texas
    Surely at some point in the time, probably in a court case, someone has questioned on what constitutional grounds the congress tried to ban something. I am just curious what line of reasoning has been used in the past.
     
  15. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,193
    With the restrictive gun laws passed in defiance of the Second Amendment Amendment willfully passed by Congress, it passes belief to expect this very same rabble of politicians to arm the folks with modern weaponry sufficient to challenge government rule.
     
  16. lanternlad1

    lanternlad1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    770
    The was a ten-year sunset to the AWB, so those against it figured that there wouldn't be much call to fight it, since it would be gone in ten years anyway. A PERMANENT AWB such as the Dems are thinking of trying will be fought tooth-and-nail by the NRA, 2nd Amend. Foundation, and every other pro-gun organization you care to mention. "Stop the Ban!" will become the rallying cry of the gunnies, much like "Remember the Alamo!" was for Travis' crew. I think a permanent AWB would be unconstitutional, and a very slippery slope.
     
  17. Rio Laxas

    Rio Laxas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Texas
    These are some of reasons I would have figured, but other than possibly the necessary and proper clause, I don't see how any of them could logically be used to support a complete ban.

    TRUE

    I can see the interstate commerce clause being used to tax machine guns crossing state lines under the NFA (not saying I agree with it). I can't see how it would give authority to ban the creation new ones for civilian ownership, especially if someone were to build one themself and for it to never cross state lines. I think there would probably be a constitutional problem with cost prohibitive taxes also.

    It seems that the states would pretty upset over any kind of a federal ban since that is a threat to the states' sovereignty.
     
  18. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    Drugs are not banned. Let me say that again, drugs are not banned. There is a tax stamp you must buy in order to have them... they just never printed the stamp.


    It has come up in court more then once, every time its been ruled its ok to tax a item, then not provide a means to pay that tax.
     
  19. Rio Laxas

    Rio Laxas Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    874
    Location:
    Texas
    Hmm, that's an interesting point. I was not aware of that fact. Under that line of thinking the federal government could tax certain books out of existence and technically not run afoul of the first amendment.
     
  20. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475
    I don't think that is the case, since free speach is expressly protected.

    The only reason why they can ban things like Child porn is that the minor can legally not enter into a contract, so there is no consent.

    The line of reasoning they will use to ban AWB is, they are not infringing on the 2a as they have not stoped you from owning a fire arm, only a kind of fire arm. Heller left the door wide open for exactly this. They kept the ruling very narrow for a reason.
     
  21. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
    Heller says you can't ban a specific type of weapon. Especially if it is in common use.
     
  22. green country shooter

    green country shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    220
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    1. The reason you can ban child porn is that it's evidence of a crime.

    2. NFA was passed as a tax out of fear of the Second Amendment.

    3. The Consitutional authority is the Commerce Clause, which is interpreted much more broadly today than in 1934, so absent Heller I don't think the courts would have any problem with complete bans today.
     
  23. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,404
    Location:
    Michiana
    The commerce clause says the fed has the power to "regulate" commerce among the states; not outlaw the commerce of an item that is protected by the second amendment.
     
  24. TAB

    TAB Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,475


    the AWB didn't ban types of weapons, it banned features of them.
     
  25. crushbup

    crushbup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    492
    It does seem as though it's up for interpretation based on the crime, but the Founding Fathers did have criminals in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

    (emphasis mine)

    From what I can tell, they wanted it so that certain liberties could be taken away, but not without due process of law, for example a felony conviction. They don't specify the type of crime it would take, so there was probably trust enough in the courts back then for the judges to know when they should and shouldn't take rights away, rather than sweeping blanket decisions.

    It banned a specific "class" of weaponry based on a laundry list of features. If that's not banning a type of a weapon, I don't know what is.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page