Replies

The ONLY gun laws we should have are felony laws against the use of a firearm in a violent crime.

Certain regulations requiring that e.g. ammunition bearing certain headstamps and no markings that would contradict them must have certain characteristics would IMHO be a perfectly reasonable and appropriate use of the interstate commerce powers, provided that

The plausible intention of such regulations was to allow people to arm themselves more effectively than would be possible otherwise, and
The government could convince a jury that somebody who violated the regulations that allowing the defendant's actions would materially impede a bona fide effort to achieve legitimate aims (a defendant would likewise be entitled to convince the jury that the real purpose of the regulation was to discourage effective armament, or that his actions were in no way impeded any legitimate government interest).

One major problem with the idea that judges should be solely responsible for "judging the law" is that judges are generally required to act under a presumption that laws are passed by people acting in good faith, and defendants are generally afforded little opportunity to challenge such a presumption. While having defendants' fates hinge on the luck of what jurors they get would be far from ideal, a recognition bad faith is a basis for illegitimacy would help undo the kinds of incremental encroachments politicians have been pushing for decades.

I approve of those markings, of course, but exactly because of the bad faith of the far left I'd rather give up the few good gun laws/regulations if that would allow us to get rid of many the bad ones. Gun laws are in most cases presented as equivalent to prior restraint. That is not acceptable in the case of speech, and there is no reason we should tolerate prior restraint in the case of RKBA.