Constitutional/Heller Question

[Dmack_901]

Maybe if Californian banned guns it would not violate the Second Amendment, but rather it would interfere with the US militia power:

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ... It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government." -Presser v Illinois

That quote deserves a giant asterisk since it is old law. Whereas this case was ruled on in 1886, Gitlow v. New York of 1925 applied the amendments to the states, thus over-ruling that.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

2A "Incorporated" To The 14A By Congress

No need. Congress can not enforce the 14th amend beyond the meaning of the 14th. They can only enforce the provisions thereof. If SCOTUS says the 2nd is not incorporatied by the 14th, Congress can not legislatively say it is and pass laws to enforce the 2nd based upon the 14th... Congress could go a long way towards that scenario however, but not with the 14th... with Article I, Sec 8, Par 15-16.

Congress has already done that in the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act".

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.​

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.

(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(4) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

(5) Businesses in the United States that are engaged in interstate and foreign commerce through the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, importation, or sale to the public of firearms or ammunition products that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce are not, and should not, be liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.

(6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

(7) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, and private interest groups and others are based on theories without foundation in hundreds of years of the common law and jurisprudence of the United States and do not represent a bona fide expansion of the common law. The possible sustaining of these actions by a maverick judicial officer or petit jury would expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, by Congress, or by the legislatures of the several States. Such an expansion of liability would constitute a deprivation of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(8) The liability actions commenced or contemplated by the Federal Government, States, municipalities, private interest groups and others attempt to use the judicial branch to circumvent the Legislative branch of government to regulate interstate and foreign commerce through judgments and judicial decrees thereby threatening the Separation of Powers doctrine and weakening and undermining important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between the sister States.​

(b) Purposes- The purposes of this Act are as follows:

(1) To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.

(2) To preserve a citizen's access to a supply of firearms and ammunition for all lawful purposes, including hunting, self-defense, collecting, and competitive or recreational shooting.

(3) To guarantee a citizen's rights, privileges, and immunities, as applied to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to section 5 of that Amendment.

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce.

(5) To protect the right, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, of manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and trade associations, to speak freely, to assemble peaceably, and to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.

(6) To preserve and protect the Separation of Powers doctrine and important principles of federalism, State sovereignty and comity between sister States.

(7) To exercise congressional power under article IV, section 1 (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) of the United States Constitution.​

Yadda Yadda Yadda...​

Take the three passages I placed in bold and there you have it! Our right to Keep and Bear Arms incorporated to apply to the several states by Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Woody

It is way past time we in this country got back to arming ourselves the way our Founding Fathers so wisely saw fit to insure us the impunity to do so in the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[RealGun]

If SCOTUS says the 2nd is not incorporatied by the 14th, Congress can not legislatively say it is and pass laws to enforce the 2nd based upon the 14th... legaleagle

SCOTUS hasn't ruled but has failed to rule. You have no argument.

 

[legaleagle_45]

SCOTUS hasn't ruled but has failed to rule.

I never said SCOTUS has ruled on incorporation... they have not (at least within the modern context of the selective incorporation analysis)

You have no argument.

Sure I do.... it is called "assuming arguendo". If SCOTUS does not incorporate the 2nd, then Congress is not empowered to use Section 5 to do so.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Take the three passages I placed in bold and there you have it!

No you don't, you only have congress pontificating... which they do all the time. Query Woody, if Congress says in a statute that the Constitution allows Congress to "provide for the general welfare" and Congress has determined that eating bran cereal every morning will reduce the incidence of colon cancer, can they invoke the general welfare provision and thereby constitutionally mandate that everyone over the age of 2 have one bowl of bran cereal for breakfast?

 

[Cosmoline]

Take the three passages I placed in bold and there you have it!

Have what? That a two bucks will get you a cup of coffee. The Purpose and Findings section are not the operative portion of the statute.

Gitlow v. New York of 1925 applied the amendments to the states

Not the Second. Gitlow addressed the application of certain portions of the First to the states via the 14th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

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

 

[sailortoo]

Incorporation

I am definitely not a constitutional scholar, but trying hard to learn. This thread has been an eye opener, an education and appreciated. My question to those that do know what the meaning of "is" is: in the case of (for instance) the Constitution of the State of New Mexico; Article II, Bill of Rights, Sec. 1. reads "The State of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land". That is the total statement of Sec. 1. Does this statement suborn New Mexico law automatically to (again, for instance) the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, sans Incorporation? It seems as tho the more debate on Constitutional questions, begets more confusion, rather than clarity.
Sailor

 

[hugh damright]

Sec. 1. reads "The State of New Mexico is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land" ... Does this statement suborn New Mexico law automatically to (again, for instance) the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, sans Incorporation?

"An inseparable part of the Federal Union" ... how different from Virginia's Constitution, which says that the majority of Virginians have an inalienable right to alter or to abolish government (and I understand that to include secession). In my view, the people of New Mexico have no right to frame a constitution which would deny future generations the inalieanable right to alter or to abolish their government.

Anyway, I think the Second Amendment was intended to limit only the federal government, and I don't see why declaring the US Constitution to be the supreme law would make the Second Amendment mean something other than what it was intended to mean.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

No you don't, you only have congress pontificating... which they do all the time. Query Woody, if Congress says in a statute that the Constitution allows Congress to "provide for the general welfare" and Congress has determined that eating bran cereal every morning will reduce the incidence of colon cancer, can they invoke the general welfare provision and thereby constitutionally mandate that everyone over the age of 2 have one bowl of bran cereal for breakfast?

Pontificating? Congress wrote that into the Act as its source of power for what they intend the Act to accomplish - to prohibit all the courts to adjudicate any of the referenced cases. For the most part - in all but one case, as far as I know - the Court has complied. The law stands unchallenged, and therefore, since the Court has not "declared" the Act unconstitutional, it is the law of the land. Got a problem with this? Take it to the Court!

Nix on the bran cereal. To begin with, We the People never gave such a power to anyone through the Constitution. I assume you are referring to the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States, and I see where you are going with this - the "obiter dictum" thing. The difference is that what was written into the Act is not obiter dictum but legislative intent. That aside, the Preamble doesn't say "provide", it says "promote" the general welfare, and is not cast as a power delegated to any branch of the Union, but as a purpose as to why We the People(that's us) crafted the Constitution to create the Union. And, we all know the best way ANY government can promote the general welfare is to stay the hell out of the way of the people, provide for their COMMON defense, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure all those things for ourselves and our descendants.

Have what? That a two bucks will get you a cup of coffee. The Purpose and Findings section are not the operative portion of the statute.

Operative or not, that is the source of power Congress tapped to create the Act and make it applicable to all the courts in the country. Y'all keep sayin' the federal courts and state courts are separate entities, and since Congress intended this Act to limit all courts, I figure y'all ought to be thrilled that the Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked - to make the Act have the force of law in the several states as well as the federal courts.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[legaleagle_45]

To begin with, We the People never gave such a power to anyone through the Constitution.

They would alsom thow in some mumbo jumbo about the commerce clause... and voila you are there.... just as they did with your example:

(4) To prevent the use of such lawsuits to impose unreasonable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce....
6) The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, invites the disassembly and destabilization of other industries and economic sectors lawfully competing in the free enterprise system of the United States, and constitutes an unreasonable burden on interstate and foreign commerce of the United States.

The difference is that what was written into the Act is not obiter dictum but legislative intent.

Irrelvant.

And, we all know the best way ANY government can promote the general welfare is to stay the hell out of the way of the people

Yeah but government does not tend do that.... so you start with a given premise (I know you disagree with that premise, but that is irrelevant to the extrapolation which you are contending for) that the 2nd is NOT incorporated by the 14th. You then assert that congress has the power to make something a part of the constitution that it was not previously... to wit that the 2nd is incorporated by the 14th and then enforce same. That is no different than asserting that the 14th establishes a power to "promote the general welfare" and force that bran cereal down your throat.

The law stands unchallenged, and therefore, since the Court has not "declared" the Act unconstitutional, it is the law of the land. Got a problem with this? Take it to the Court!

Why since the court would find it constitutional under the commerce clause? Seems rather fruitless exercise, IMHO.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You then assert that congress has the power to make something a part of the constitution that it was not previously... to wit that the 2nd is incorporated by the 14th and then enforce same.

Man, that's off base! The Second Amendment has been a part of the Constitution since it was ratified in 1791! The Fourteenth Amendment and ITS incorporation of the protections of rights and freedoms to be binding upon the several states has been applicable since its ratification in 1868. There is no way to read the Fourteenth Amendment that would require the Court to "incorporate" the actions of the amendment. It's very own ratification accomplished that. Congress, using Section 5 of the amendment and the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, Section 1, passed legislation enforcing the protection of the Second Amendment onto the several states. You cannot deny that that is what the Act accomplished. The Act specifically mentions Federal and State courts.

The only way you could wiggle out of this is to say the courts are all part of one judicial system, but the Act would have the same effect anyway, so, on second thought, there is no wiggle room.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

 

[camacho]

I think there is some misunderstanding on the "incorporation" issue, but I think that what Levy wrote in this piece sheds some light on it. According to Levy, while it appears that the whole Bill of Rights ought to be incorporated, the issue of Second Amendment still needs to be litigated which will be another battle ahead of us.

Room for restrictions, but D.C. ban goes too far

November 28, 2007

BY ROBERT A. LEVY

It has been 68 years since the U.S. Supreme Court examined the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment. It has been 31 years since the District of Columbia enacted its feckless ban on all functional firearms in the capital. It has been eight months since the second most important court in the country, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, declared the D.C. ban -- among the most restrictive in the nation -- unconstitutional.

The obvious incongruity of those three events could be resolved soon, when the Supreme Court reviews the appeals court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Oral arguments likely will be held this spring, with a decision expected before June 30. (I am cocounsel for the plaintiffs and am one of the attorneys who initiated the lawsuit.)

The stakes are immense. Very few legal questions stir the passions like gun control. Further, Washington is home to the federal government, making it an appropriate venue to challenge all federal gun laws, no matter where an alleged Second Amendment violation might have occurred.

Thus, Heller could have an immediate effect not only on D.C. gun regulations, but on federal regulations. Equally important, if the Supreme Court affirms the D.C. circuit's holding, state gun control laws across the nation could be vulnerable to constitutional attack. But before that happens, two other issues would have to be litigated. The first is the knotty question of whether the Second Amendment can be invoked against state governments. Until 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government.

But in the aftermath of the Civil War, much of the Bill of Rights was considered "incorporated" by the 14th Amendment to bind the states as well. Regrettably, the incorporation of the Second Amendment has not yet been settled. And that issue did not arise in Heller, because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, not a state.

The second question is even more complicated: What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that Second Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the First Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice. Similarly, gun regulations can be imposed on some weapons (e.g., missiles), some people (e.g., preteens) and some uses (e.g., murder).

Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing. But the Constitution does not permit an across-the-board ban on all handguns, in all homes, for all residents, as in the case of the Washington ban (with the exception of current and retired police officers). Somewhere in the middle, regulations will be deemed constitutional even if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court.

Meanwhile, the high court also will have to re-examine its 1939 gun case, United States v. Miller, which generated more heat than light regarding the Second Amendment.

The core holding of Miller was that protected weapons must be "in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."

Heller is entirely compatible with that holding. Pistols, which are banned in D.C., are self-evidently "in common use," and they have been carried into battle by American troops in every conflict since the Revolutionary War. But a proper reading of the Second Amendment should not attempt to link each and every weapon to the militia -- except to note that the grand scheme of the amendment was to ensure that people trained in the use of firearms would be ready for militia service.

ROBERT A. LEVY is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226 or at [email protected].

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071128/OPINION02/711280339/1068/OPINION

 

[legaleagle_45]

Man, that's off base! The Second Amendment has been a part of the Constitution since it was ratified in 1791! The Fourteenth Amendment and ITS incorporation of the protections of rights and freedoms to be binding upon the several states has been applicable since its ratification in 1868. There is no way to read the Fourteenth Amendment that would require the Court to "incorporate" the actions of the amendment.

Woody your argument is circular. Of course, if you assume that the 2nd is incorporated by the 14th, then Congress has the power to enforce it through the 14th. But that was not your initial premise. You asserted that even if SCOTUS does not incorporate the 2nd, then Congress still has the power to enforce it throught the 14th... I realize that you have a somewhat "unique" opinion of "judicial review" and the validity of pronouncements from SCOTUS regarding the constitution when they differ from yours, which is why I asked you to assume arguendo that the 2nd was not incorporated by the 14th. If you make that basic assumption, your entire argument regarding the power of Congress to none the less pass legislation accomplishing the same thing totally falls apart...

So, pragmatically... IF SCOTUS decides that the 2nd is not incorporated by the 14th, then SCOTUS will also hold as unconstitutional efforts to create said incorporation based solely upon Section 5 of the 14th Amend.

You may disagree with SCOTUS and condemn them for their stupidity, but the fact remains that at the end of the day, Congressional attempts to enforce the 2nd through Section 5 of the 14th will be for naught sans a decision from SCOTUS declaring the 2nd incorporated by the 14th.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

LegalEagle 45,

Your analysis assumes a need for the Supreme Court to "incorporate" the caveats of the Fourteenth. No such requirement exists in the Fourteenth Amendment, any other amendment, or article in the Constitution. It is the ratification process in Article V which proscribes the method to follow for an amendment to become the law of the land. That has been done - a long time ago.

The reluctance of Congress and the Court to accept this boggles my mind. I cannot figure out how this amendment, being drafted in Congress and ratified by the states, passed yet is treated as more of a thorn in the side of government. Is it because it protects We the People and does not grant any power to Congress other than to enforce its caveats? The actions - or rather the lack of actions by Congress and the Court belies the true character of those who populate those branches of our government, on both state and federal levels.

It's no wonder our Founding Fathers saw fit to protect our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. There may come a time when we'll need them. I know this, too: The more arms we have, the less we'll ever need them to uphold our individual freedoms, sovereignty, and welfare. In this world, there is only one force that rules, governs, and protects; that is the force of arms. Anyone who would take them away is no less tyrannical than any foreign or domestic dictator who would take advantage of our weakened state.

Woody

You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. B.E.Wood

 

[glummer]

legaleagle 45

Congressional attempts to enforce the 2nd through Section 5 of the 14th will be for naught sans a decision from SCOTUS declaring the 2nd incorporated by the 14th.

Could you clarify that a bit?
It sounds like you are saying that Congress needs prior approval from SCOTUS to pass enforceable legislation?
The 14th means nothing until after SCOTUS says so?
And how does SCOTUS do that, if no enforceable legislation is passed first?
SCOTUS is an appeals court. There will be no cases to rule on, without legislation.

 

[hugh damright]

It seems to me that some people assume that the 14th makes the USBOR binding upon the States, but the amendment doesn't actually say that, and the SCOTUS hasn't seen it that way. If the 14th said that the first eight amendments are binding upon the States, and that Congress has power to pass legislation to enforce the provision, then Congress would be empowered. But as it is, I do not see Congress as having jurisdiction over my personal RKBA for my personal use.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Could you clarify that a bit?
It sounds like you are saying that Congress needs prior approval from SCOTUS to pass enforceable legislation?

No, my comment was based soley upon the predicate that SCOTUS would rule or had ruled adversely to incorporation. Congress can pass the legislation and SCOTUS may thereafter determine whether said legislation is constitutional within the confines of an actual case in which the question arises.

No prior approval from SCOTUS as to any legislation can be obtained based upon the cases and controversies clause found in Article III...

What I am saying is merely this:

If SCOTUS rules that the 2nd is not incorporated by the 14th, any legislation passed by Congress which uses Section 5 of the 14th as its sole justification to enforce the 2nd as against the states will be found to be invalid. Congress may not by statute define what us and what is not constitutional.

 

[legaleagle_45]

It is the ratification process in Article V which proscribes the method to follow for an amendment to become the law of the land. That has been done - a long time ago.

Again you are assuming your conclusion as justification for your analysis. Certainly, if the 2nd is in fact incorporated by the 14th, then it of course follows that Congress may use Section 5 to force compliance by the states. However, if you assume (just for the sake of argument) that the 2nd is NOT incorporated, then it clearly follows that Congress may not boot strap incorporation of the 2nd into the Constitution by legislation merely claiming that it is.

 

[Cosmoline]

Congressional attempts to enforce the 2nd through Section 5 of the 14th will be for naught sans a decision from SCOTUS declaring the 2nd incorporated by the 14th.

True, but if Congress actually wanted to protect the RKBA in general they could do so with regular old commerce clause legislation. They've taken some small steps in that direction but not many. Protecting the makers from suit is one example. Allowing lawful cross-state transport of firearms under certain conditions is another.

 

[legaleagle_45]

True, but if Congress actually wanted to protect the RKBA in general they could do so with regular old commerce clause legislation.

Or through Article I, Sec 8, Par 15-16... which is why I inserted legal weasel words such as:

any legislation passed by Congress which uses Section 5 of the 14th as its sole justification to enforce the 2nd

Legaleagle= got an A+ in the law school course on the proper usage of legal weasel words....

 

[glummer]

eagle

If SCOTUS rules that the 2nd is not incorporated by the 14th, any legislation passed by Congress which uses Section 5 of the 14th as its sole justification to enforce the 2nd as against the states will be found to be invalid.

It seems to me that you're jumping to an enormous and unnecessary conclusion here.
In the real world, any such legislation would be automatically valid, until such time as a case challenging it reaches SCOTUS and they rule one way or the other on the issues of that case. A blanket assumption that any such case will succeed is unjustified.

By the way, what does section 5 do, according to SCOTUS? It surely empowers Congress to do something that it could not do previously. Under the original-non-incorporation theory, what power is enabled?

 

[BobbyQuickdraw]

Doesn't it seem silly and absurd that the Founders of the Constitution would set up a list of Freedoms that the National Government can't take away, but they were willing to let individual states strip those freedoms away?

All this talk of "incorporation" seems to amount to "States can pick and choose the Amendments" or maybe "The Supreme Court decides what the states can and can't make law."

The Fathers founded a Nation, not a Confederation. We are the United States of America. Not the Confederated States. National laws and national rights exist. They are in the Bill of Rights. It boggles my mind that this is even an arguable point and it downright infuriates me that some lawmakers could somehow see it differently.

If there is ever doubt that the Founding Fathers meant every free man to be armed, I would like to see 1 single quote where a Father says something that is anti-private gun ownership. I've been waiting for the quote for over 20 years and its not here.

 

[hugh damright]

The Fathers founded a Nation, not a Confederation. We are the United States of America. Not the Confederated States. National laws and national rights exist. They are in the Bill of Rights. It boggles my mind that this is even an arguable point and it downright infuriates me that some lawmakers could somehow see it differently.

The US Constitution is a compact between the States, a federal compact, not a national compact. And the USBOR did not originally bind the States.

 

[CleverNickname]

Doesn't it seem silly and absurd that the Founders of the Constitution would set up a list of Freedoms that the National Government can't take away, but they were willing to let individual states strip those freedoms away?

Not really, because the 14th Amendment wasn't passed until 1868. All the founders were long dead by then.

What does seem absurd to me is that if incorporation is a valid legal theory, that Congress in 1868 only intended to incorporate parts of the Bill of Rights, not the whole thing. There's nothing in the 14th Amendment to indicate that, or to indicate which parts of the BoR should or should not be incorporated.

 

[gc70]

Originally Posted by legaleagle 45
No need. Congress can not enforce the 14th amend beyond the meaning of the 14th. They can only enforce the provisions thereof. If SCOTUS says the 2nd is not incorporatied by the 14th, Congress can not legislatively say it is and pass laws to enforce the 2nd based upon the 14th... Congress could go a long way towards that scenario however, but not with the 14th... with Article I, Sec 8, Par 15-16.

Originally Posted by ConstitutionCowboy
Congress has already done that in the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act".

What happened, ConstitutionCowboy?

Aren't you the guy who frequently tells everyone that the Constitution can not be interpreted by SCOTUS and certainly can not be changed by a mere Act of Congress?

Are you now saying that Congress can simply pass a law to change the meaning or application of the Constitution?