Why aren't we challenging the Feds?

[bullzeye8]

I am wondering why we aren't challenging federal gun laws? We are preventing new ones from beginning but not challenging current ones like the NRA and others are doing with so many local and federal laws. I feel like challenging a few federal laws may ruin so many state and local laws. Instead of challenging states not allowing NFA items how about we challenge the NFA itself? Then not only will it be gone but it will set precedent to show the gov't can't ban any gun. Has anybody tried challenging it? What about challenging you need to be 21 to buy handguns, their ammo, and NFA items. Saying you can't discriminate adults by age means now under 21 can carry and buy those item nationwide. If we challenge full auto rifles being banned and win won't that mean that all states can not only deny civilians the right to own ar-15s but also their full auto counterparts.

So my question is have we ever tried challenging some of these laws? If not why? We are spending all kinds of money focusing on cities and states when with one lawsuit we can win rights nationwide. We have the constitution on our side so why not challenge the federal gov't?

 

[burrhead]

You first. All you have to do is be arrested for violating the NFA and then start a series of appeals to the SCOTUS. Of course you'll have to win at the Supreme Court level.

Good luck, man. Go get 'em.

 

[JVaughn]

I don't think he was suggesting breaking the laws in protest. I think he meant pushing to get them changed via legislative action.

 

[JohnKSa]

What about challenging you need to be 21 to buy handguns...

http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2014/02/supreme-court-rejects-nras-gun-law-appeals.html

"The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a pair of NRA appeals challenging federal and state gun laws, leaving those laws more or less intact.

The High Court on Monday declined to hear two NRA cases concerning the ability to sell guns to those under 21, Reuters reports."​

There have been challenges. Heller and McDonald are two successful challenges. The one listed above was an unsuccessful challenge.

There have been challenges to the NFA in the 80 years since it was passed. All unsuccessful.

 

[burrhead]

JVaughn, you may be right but he said "challenge". That's how you challenge a law. Neither that nor trying to do it legislatively is going to work but if he really wants to, all he has to do is get a House Rep to write a bill.

As I said, good luck.

edit--Sorry, JohnKSa wrote a better answer while I was posting.

 

[bullzeye8]

Yeah I don't mean illegally go against them but we can sue the govt if they are denying us of our constitutional rights and that is what I mean to do. Or make changes to the laws but with the Obama that will be hard to do as I doubt we could get 2/3 of the senate to vote for those but if we just sue them like they are currently doing just for denying us our rights we could win.

 

[Tommygunn]

Yeah I don't mean illegally go against them but we can sue the govt if they are denying us of our constitutional rights and that is what I mean to do. Or make changes to the laws but with the Obama that will be hard to do as I doubt we could get 2/3 of the senate to vote for those but if we just sue them like they are currently doing just for denying us our rights we could win.

Soveirign Immunity would prevent a lawsuit. The government makes it very tough to sue them because if it were easy, "anyone could do it" -- well, everyone would. It would bog down the courts.
Your best bet is found at the ballot box. Support politicians like Ron Paul or Rand Paul. They're kooks on some issues but libertarian and I suspect your best bet is in the libertarian philosophy.
You could start a writing campaign in support of your beliefs.
The antigunners will squeel like stuck piggies when the NFA, the GCA of '38 and '68 and other of their sacred cows are attacked, for sure. Don't expect it to be easy!

 

[AlexanderA]

if we just sue them like they are currently doing just for denying us our rights we could win.

I don't think you have any idea how difficult that would be. And do you have several million dollars to fund such a case? (The people with the deep pockets assess their chances first, and if it looks like a poor investment -- poor chances of success -- they won't waste their money.)

 

[rcmodel]

Myself?

Of all the things the federal government has been up too lately, they need to be challenged on a lot of other things first!!!!

They have been hiding one scandal with another bigger scandal for quite some time now.

Right now, the NFA is the very least of my very huge concerns!




rc

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah I don't mean illegally go against them but we can sue the govt if they are denying us of our constitutional rights and that is what I mean to do.

Actually, you don't just sue the government for denying you your rights.

What burrhead said is EXACTLY how laws are challenged.

In order to sue, you have to have "standing." That means, you have to have some skin in the game. You have to have been harmed and are seeking a specific remedy. Just being an average joe citizen who wants to do "X" but won't because it is illegal isn't enough. Themost common way to have standing is to violate the law and be arrested and convicted. Then you are a wronged party and can bring a suit asking the Court to vacate the law you were convicted of breaking. That's the short version.

The long version is that it can take a decade of lawyers' billable hours while you bounce between prison and court, fighting through the various trials, convictions, and appeals up until you finally petition the US Supreme Court to hear your case.

Now you're one of about 7,000 cases a year they're asked to hear. And out of those 7,000 they pick about 60-75. Do ya feel lucky?

 

[9mmepiphany]

Yeah I don't mean illegally go against them but we can sue the govt if they are denying us of our constitutional rights and that is what I mean to do.

I don't think you have a good grasp of how laws work.

They are only denying you the exercise of your rights if your exercise of them causes you to be subject to prosecution.

That means you have to do something, in violation of an existing law, to be arrested and they have to attempt to punish you. Otherwise you have no standing for legal action.

Oops, Sam1911 posted while I was typing

 

[barnbwt]

They are only denying you the exercise of your rights if your exercise of them causes you to be subject to prosecution.

According to case law, thus far. At least, I'm not aware of anyone bringing suit based on the very real, but legally fictitious deterrent posed by bad laws --fully on display in this discussion, no less . I don't think SCOTUS would want the workload such a task would bring down upon them

Now you're one of about 7,000 cases a year they're asked to hear. And out of those 7,000 they pick about 60-75. Do ya feel lucky?

Maybe if it was anything but a gun rights case; it's seriously starting to get embarrassing how they are avoiding the issue, of late.

TCB

 

[Midwest]

We can challenge the Feds by electing pro-gun and libertarian minded candidates. If every one of the purported 100 million gun owners would just put up $1 each. We can outspend Bloomberg 3 times over.

.

 

[230RN]

See sig line.... and the Legislators are darned well aware of that fact.

Terry, 230RN

 

[MAKster]

I have to disagree with the OP's premise. The federal firearms laws are being challenged in the courts and legislatures every day. There are dozens of active federal and state court cases on all these issues. How quickly people forget the two Supreme Court decisions saying we all have a constitutional right to own firearms. State legislatures have enacted laws regarding the commerce clause basis for much of these laws and these are working their way through the courts. There have been numerous court cases on carrying in public including a recent Supreme Court decision in May. Legislation in regularly introduced in Congress on all these issues as well.

 

[Blackbeard]

You don't have to break the law to challenge the law. Heller didn't break the law -- he just applied for a permit and was denied. If you want to challenge the machine-gun ban, just try to register a new machine gun. Then take your denial to court.

ETA: The reason people don't challenge it is the expense involved. Do you know how much constitutional lawyers cost?

 

[mgkdrgn]

Yeah I don't mean illegally go against them but we can sue the govt if they are denying us of our constitutional rights and that is what I mean to do.

Sure you can .... but who do you think it going to run out of money and lawyers first?

Want to change the laws ... then flush the guys that made them and get new ones. Then after they have been there a few years, flush them too.

Term limits. Return the government OF the people TO the people.

 

[Midwest]

I am wondering why we aren't challenging federal gun laws? What about challenging you need to be 21 to buy handguns, their ammo, and NFA items. Saying you can't discriminate adults by age means now under 21 can carry and buy those item nationwide.

The age to purchase a handgun, handgun ammunition and NFA items should have been lowered to 18 when the 26th Amendment was passed lowering the voting age to 18 across the land in July 1 1971.

I don't know why no one (that I know of) tried changing the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

.

 

[Tommygunn]

You don't have to break the law to challenge the law. Heller didn't break the law -- he just applied for a permit and was denied. If you want to challenge the machine-gun ban, just try to register a new machine gun. Then take your denial to court.

ETA: The reason people don't challenge it is the expense involved. Do you know how much constitutional lawyers cost?

Technically true, but you do have to be "harmed" in some way, and Heller was.
That is you must have "skin in the game" as Sam1911 said. Also --as he said -- "standing."
If ALL you're doing is saying "I do not agree with the NFA 0f 1934," then you have neither standing or "skin in the game."
The best bet is to elect representatives who agree with you, IMHO.

 

[vamo]

As far as the courts go they are being challenged, just because we have a very strong belief about the government's authority on guns under the constitution does not mean that the judges hearing the case will agree. Things just don't always work out the way you want them to in court.

As far as legislatively, 1 chamber of congress is progun and even if we were to get a bill we like through the senate an antigun president has the power to veto it. So no laws we'd like to see passed/repealed, are going to be passed/repealed this session of congress or the next for that matter. Things could change in 2016, but its going take a progun president, a progun house majority, and senate with over 66 progun senators (or atleast apathetic enough to not filibuster).

 

[Outlaw Man]

I'd venture to say it's challenged on an almost daily basis somewhere in the US. They're either just not getting caught, or they don't have a good case or the legal representation to make something of it. The guy that had an M-16 in his truckload of heroin isn't our preferred choice - though sometimes the thugs are the ones who make the best cases.

If we ALL practiced civil disobedience when it came to to Federal gun legislation, they would have a hard time prosecuting and incarcerating everyone. Not many people are willing to be the first...or the thousandth....though.

On the legislative side of things, Ron Paul introduced a bill every term, when he was in office, to repeal a good chunk of Federal legislation. One Congressman won't get it passed, though. As others have said, we need significantly more liberty minded Congresscritters.