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

How are Universal Background Checks Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by CmdrSlander, Mar 13, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Akita1

    Akita1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2013
    Messages:
    857
    Location:
    Hell (FL)
    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!
     
  2. baz

    baz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    988
    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.
     
  3. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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.
     
  4. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,005
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  5. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Your generalization is not helpful and backwards.
    Read what they SCOTUS has actually said. Not just vague claims that there are no limits.

     
  6. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    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.
     
  7. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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.


     
  8. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    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.
     
  9. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,761
    Location:
    Central Florida
    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
     
  10. gbran

    gbran Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,972
    Location:
    california
    The 2A is the least defended and most infringed right we have.
     
  11. TFL

    TFL Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Southern MN
    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.
     
  12. bushmaster1313

    bushmaster1313 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    3,592
    Location:
    Peoples Republik of New Jersey
    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
     
  13. itsa pain

    itsa pain member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page