Sawed off shotguns now legal?

[Fosbery]

Don't some states ban NFA weapons entirely, which would be in breach of the 2A assuming the individual rights thing comes through? Vermont, for instance, bans silencers (ok, nobody really wants to screw with Vermont because they'be probably got the best gun laws but I bet Maryland has banned machineguns or something).

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Don't some states ban NFA weapons entirely, which would be in breach of the 2A assuming the individual rights thing comes through? Vermont, for instance, bans silencers (ok, nobody really wants to screw with Vermont because they'be probably got the best gun laws but I bet Maryland has banned machineguns or something).

Yes, some do. And it is possible that those bans may not survive some future lawsuit IMO.

 

[rino451]

It's important to note that it has often been left to the states to decide for some time now. That's why Heller is important - there is no "state" in DC which forces the court to make a determination for the entire country (@ the federal level) with regard to the interpretation of the 2A.

I could be wrong, tho...

 

[ilbob]

The Court is not going to declare paper money illegal no matter WHAT the constitution says, and they are not going to overturn the NFA.

Despite what some people think, the constitution never forbade the federal government from issuing paper money. It does prohibit individual states from making anything other than gold or silver as legal tender, but presumably the federal government under its power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, could do so.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

My example may have been off target a little (though I "borrowed" it from Bork who used it in one of his books), but I still say that the Court is not gonna overturn the NFA. Settled law.

 

[ilbob]

My example may have been off target a little (though I "borrowed" it from Bork who used it in one of his books), but I still say that the Court is not gonna overturn the NFA. Settled law.

Actually, in many respects, the NFA is not so much settled law as it is law that the courts are afraid to touch. For the most part they have avoided direct rulings on NFA cases on 2A grounds, which is certainly where the best case is.

People point to things like the Dred Scott decision as cases where bad precedents get tossed out, but few people remember that the Dred Scott decision was overturned by a constitutional amaendment, and not just a court changing its mind.

Courts make mistakes now and then (read the Roe v. Wade decision if you want a good example of just plain wrong legal thinking) and even then are not inclined to correct their mistakes. I think the feeling is that it is inherently unfair to change the law once people start to depend on it.

The courts give a lot of deference to government at all levels, and are loath to overturn a law unless they are absolutely forced to. Thats why you see the tortured logic that comes with some of the worst decisions.

There are some good reasons behind this. Suppose you decided that private property could not be taken and given to another private party. What do you do with the thousands of cases where this has happened over the years? You can't go back and tear down the shopping centers or whatever else was already built, so the courts almost had to come up with some kind of justification.

And in fact, the 5th amendment does not actually prohibit the taking of private property and turning it over to another private entity. Read it quite carefully.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

 

[geekWithA.45]

Frankie T. Yankee:

I'm actually agreeing with you that the NFA will stand for the foreseeable future, due to state decisis.

I don't know that it will stand for all time, however.

I am noting that the basis for its eventual downfall exists, and is being reinforced in our current era.

But as always, what matters is not my opinion or yours, but the opinions of the nine justices that make up the SCOTUS.

That's true, but only to the limited degree that their stewardship of it meets with our overall approval. Ultimately, it's -OUR- Constitution, not theirs, and if they go too far afield, we may find it necessary to take it back.