How are Universal Background Checks Constitutional?

[Akita1]

I'm sure there are many that believe that line of thought. It is incorrect though... this lady describes the problem with it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEimFzVnZkw

Great link; KrisAnne Hall was a Federal Prosecutor here in FL who got fired for being politically active (speaking at TP rallies, etc. but never in an official capacity). The person who fired her, Skip Jarvis, had done the same himself for Democrat Rod Smith when he ran for Governor of FL in 2006. She's a very smart lawyer who promotes constitutional originalism - smokes libs in debates on a regular basis!

 

[baz]

Why not a poll tax? There is no tax suggested in UBC.

Well, I'm kind of waiting for that. Eventually, someone will suggest that a fee should attach to a UBC. I do guess that Roberts might distinguish his decision in "Obamacare" that it was a tax by arguing that a fee here would amount to a poll tax, i.e. a fee to exercise a fundamental right. Lots of uncharted territory here we we start wondering what's "constitutional" and what isn't. Until Heller, many thought that the individual right to keep and bear arms wasn't constitutional. Shows how much they knew. Who knows anything? It is just all speculation.

 

[joeschmoe]

Well, I'm kind of waiting for that. Eventually, someone will suggest that a fee should attach to a UBC. I do guess that Roberts might distinguish his decision in "Obamacare" that it was a tax by arguing that a fee here would amount to a poll tax, i.e. a fee to exercise a fundamental right. Lots of uncharted territory here we we start wondering what's "constitutional" and what isn't. Until Heller, many thought that the individual right to keep and bear arms wasn't constitutional. Shows how much they knew. Who knows anything? It is just all speculation.

No true. If you read US v Miller the court already said the right to arms was protected by the 2nd in 1934. The court has written lots on these subjects. (Commerce clause and arms). I posted quotes and links on page 1. We know what the Constitution says, and we know what SCOTUS has said on many subjects. Many just don't read them or try to find ways around them. They will fail.

Unless someone can show where in the Constitution the power for UBC is specifically delegated, then they don't have it.

 

[gc70]

Unless someone can show where in the Constitution the power for UBC is specifically delegated, then they don't have it.

Such a generalization is not helpful. The Supreme Court has succeeded in ruling on thousands of issues by looking further than whether something was 'specifically delegated' in the Constitution.

 

[joeschmoe]

Such a generalization is not helpful. The Supreme Court has succeeded in ruling on thousands of issues by looking further than whether something was 'specifically delegated' in the Constitution.

Your generalization is not helpful and backwards.
Read what they SCOTUS has actually said. Not just vague claims that there are no limits.

but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[Sambo82]

As others have said, U.S. vs Miller and Raich V. Gonzales has already established that the fed.gov can regulate a product under the Commerce Clause even if that product doesn't cross state lines, or even leaves the property of the owner. Arguing that the federal government "can't" regulate something because it stays within state boarders is about a century behind the times.

I know it's messed up, I know it's a dishonest reading of the Constitution, and that the Miller court was bullied into it, but it is what it is. Current court precident essentially invalidates Amendments 1-10.

 

[joeschmoe]

So it doesn't matter how many times I post where SCOTUS has limited Congress and the commerce clause. It's easier to just throw you hands up and cry the Constitution is dead.

(struck down)
Under the theories that the Government presents in support of §922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.

The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce


Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. [n.3] Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity

UNITED STATES v. MORRISON et al.


"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we would have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. See supra, at 8. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, cf. Gibbons v. Ogden, supra, at 195, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, cf. Jones & Laughlin Steel, supra, at 30. This we are unwilling to do.
Under the theories that the Government presents in support of §922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States historically have been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate. "

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. ALFONSO LOPEZ,

 

[Sambo82]

Ah gotcha. So at best the USSC sometimes rules that there are limits to the Federal Government's powers under the Commerce Clause. So the Commerce Clause applying to intrastate commerce is unconstitutional after it was constitutional, after it was unconstitutional.

I'm glad you find comfort in this.

 

[AirForceShooter]

So if I pass a BG Check I should be able to buy a gun in any state?
That would be nice.

not happening but nice

AFS

 

[gbran]

The 2A is the least defended and most infringed right we have.

 

[TFL]

Article 1 section 8 of the U S Constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such
Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the
States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the
Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

along with 2A:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Gives them the right UNLESS YOU belong to a congressional organized militia.


Some say that 2A is the constitution but the constitution is what our country is based on and without the rest there is NO United States of America, just an well armed lawless land

No changes will be made until a 2A weapons case makes it to the US SUPREME COURT so they can provide a written opinion.

Want the issue resolved, find that case and spend millions in lawyers fees managing to get it through every lower court first and then millions more once it reaches there.

talk is free, actions cost tons of money, How rich do you feel?

How About
-CITE-
10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-MISC1-
Sec.
311. Militia: composition and classes.
312. Militia duty: exemptions.

-End-



-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/03/2012 (112-90)

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

 

[bushmaster1313]

Congress only wants to regulate private sales because of crime/violence. SCOTUS has said that is not within their power.

The gun free school zone law was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS when it did not say "in interstate commerce"

Law has been amended and has not been struck down

 

[itsa pain]

in my lifetime the us supreme court has always rubber stamped what the feds wanted to do like forced busing roadblocks forfeiture of assets illegal searches spying etc and most recently Obamacare