Justice Dept. Reverses Policy on Meaning of Second Amendment

The New York Times ^ | 5/7/02 | Linda Greenhouse

[Poohbah]

You can practically HEAR the sneer on the article's author's smug little elitist antigun homosexual face.

Laz, I'm sensing hostility here...

[El Gato]

the time may come when the limits of the "commerce clause" can be examined.

That time has already arrived. For example the Supreme Court threw out the first federal Gun Free school zones law on the basis that schools were not engaged in commerce at all, let alone interstate commerce and therefore the federal government has no power to pass or enforce such a law.

Of course the Congress turned right around and passed the law again, this time sprinkling some "interstate commerce" pixie dust on it, alleging that at least the firearms moved in interstate commerce, so they could be "regulated". The new law has yet to arrive at the Court.

[El Gato]

True, gov't can tax machine guns

Only as part of a general tax. A specific tax on machine guns is no different than a specific tax on newsprint and ink. The Court long ago stated that a specific tax on newsprint and ink, or on printed material in general, is violation of the first amendment freedom of the press. Similarly a tax on firearms, as opposed to say sporting goods or hunting and fishing supplies in general, is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. The exercise of a right cannot be taxed.

[Squantos]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity..................

Stay Safe Laz !!

[Lazamataz]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.................

Good point, thanks for reminding me of that point.

[Kevin Curry]

Is this good news or not?

It's good news if you suspect that the makeup of the current SCOTUS is such that a majority would rule against (or signal to the subordinate federal courts by way of dicta that it would rule against) the personal right to keep and bear arms versus a collective, state-controlled right.

If that is the likely makeup of the court, you really don't want to give them a bite at the apple.

[Eagle Eye]

I was asking because there are some very well-trained and educated 2A scholars here that have shown repeatedly that due to particluar phrasings and leaning of certain courts that what sometimes looks good on the surface isn't and vice versa. Emmerson hasn't been the victory that some of us had hoped.

Hey Rush, what's up? Got FR running in the background again, eh?

[RandallFlagg]

Now all we need is for them to make "Vermont-Style" concealed carry nationwide and call it an anti-terror bill.

If that happened (fat chance), Bush and the REAL Americans in office would be GUARANTEED re-election. Meantime, the gun-grabbing, socialist, have-to-be-paid-for-by-taxpayers-because-they-never-learned-to-get-a-real-job politicians would be thrown out the door.

That scenario is still a far dream, but one can still hope.