Rkba - why congress may lawfully require citizens to buy guns and ammunition

[Rail Driver]

So basically it seems that in this case as well as most others, it boils down to this:

Our government doesn't know or won't admit to what powers they do and don't legally (constitutionally) actually have, most of us don't really know what powers our government really has in most cases, and nobody seems to be able to do anything to limit the government effectively when they overstep those bounds, whatever they may be... So where does that leave us?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Congress can no more force you to buy a gun than force you to buy health insurance. Congress's power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, is for CONGRESS to do the buying!

Woody

 

[NelsErik]

ConstitutionCowboy

Congress can no more force you to buy a gun than force you to buy health insurance. Congress's power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, is for CONGRESS to do the buying!

Woody

American history says different...

This is inherent in the 2nd Amendment...

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.

Also, the majority of colonial codes required that people have and keep their own arms...

Massachusetts in 1632 required each person to "have ... a sufficient musket or other serviceable peece for war ... for himself and each man servant he keeps able to beare arms." - The Compact with the Charter and General Laws of the Colony of New Plymouth 44-45

In the Code of 1672 men were to provide their own arms, but arms would be supplied to those unable to obtain them. In New York, each town was to keep a stock of arms, and each man between 16 and 60 was to have arms. - Duke of York's Laws (1665-1675)

Even those not obligated to serve in the militia were required to keep arms and ammunition in their houses. - First Gen. Assembly, 2d Sess., ch. 20 (October 1684)

The militia provisions of the Connecticut Code of 1650 said, "All persons ... shall beare arms ...; and every male person ... shall have in continual readiness, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service." South Carolina had similar codes. - S.C. Stat., No. 206 (1703)

 

[Sam1911]

Some important points here:

This is inherent in the 2nd Amendment...

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.

The 2nd Amendment, just like the 1st, explains (does not even "grant") a RIGHT. Not a requirement or a duty that the federal government can force you to perform.

Also, the majority of colonial codes required that people have and keep their own arms...

That falls under the 10th Amendment. Rights not expressly delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, are left up to the States, or to the people. There is no expressly worded Constitutional right that prevents your State from imposing a duty to be armed on you. (Though there is, obviously, an expressly worded Constitutional prohibition against your State prohibiting you from keeping and bearing arms.)

The federal government was not given that right. The States do retain it.

 

[bushmaster1313]

But can the Government make you buy broccoli?

 

[Sam1911]

But can the Government make you buy broccoli?

There may be one or two areas in which the federal government has usurped powers that do not rightfully belong to it...

 

[NelsErik]

Sam1911,
I would welcome you to read Publius Huldah's blog under the ask questions section, I would very interested in your thoughts...


What say you?

 

[JRH6856]

What say you?

I say that's bad link.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And we're starting to stray from being firearms related -- enough.