Posted on 12/21/2007 9:45:54 AM PST by Revtwo
So what? If one is certified and adjudicated a lunatic, they shouldn't be allowed to have pointy objects. That includes guns.
"Getting relief from disability would end up in the same budgetary dust bin they used to shut down the appeals process for "reformed" felons."
Apparently you skipped over the part where it says the relief must be acted upon, regardless of any lack of appropriated funds. They used the word must, not may, might, or the phrase whenever we get around to it.
"Here's an idea... "Shall not be infringed"."
The people the right is held by are presumed to be rational agents. The names of those folks don't appear on the list, so their rights are not infringed.
"If a person is criminal enough, or mentally deranged enough, we'll either lock them up longer or shoot them in self defense."
Most folks aren't gunslingers. They don't want nutcases to have access to the legitimate firearms market.
"Nothing else passes the Constitutional "smell test"."
THere's nothing unocnstitutionla about this law.
"Or does this legislation magically impart new "mental health" adjudication powers to the list in Art 1 Sect 8?"
The Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. That means they can exclude mental cases from the market altogether.
Interstate commerce does not include mental health. If you can’t wrap your head around that fact, you don’t have any call to be expounding upon it.
It includes both trade in firearms and the relevant med services industry.
"If you can’t wrap your head around that fact, you don’t have any call to be expounding upon it."
Buy a case of vowels.
Arbitrary restriction and violation of a protected Right was no part of the power given to the Feds.
Get over it. Don't be part of the problem...
You nailed it exactly!
I gotta go by some popcorn......be back later !
No. The Commerce Clause is general and applies to any regulation of any market. In particular, one of the motivations for holding the COnstitutional Convention was to break up and prevent monopolies, such as the shoe monopoly that ticked folks in a bunch of states off back then.
"Arbitrary restriction and violation of a protected Right was no part of the power given to the Feds."
There's nothing arbitrary about having a list of prohibited persons and keeping them from engaging in any market. That includes the firearms and explosives market. The disqualifiers aren't arbitrary either. Felons have lost their right through legislative action and so have mental cases that have been adjudicated a danger to self, or others.
If someone is certified and adjudicated a lunatic, they shouldn't have access to a lot of things. Unless you're suggesting that, in the absence of legislation, someone would open up a gun store within an insane asylum, I really don't see what that has to do with people who are not locked up.
Congress is given authority over commerce among the several states, with other nations, etc. If the grant of authority was supposed to cover intrastate commerce, why not just grant authority over "commerce" and leave it at that?
If someone in Alaska wants to sell a firearm to someone else in Alaska, that's not interstate commerce except possibly in the case where the first person had bought a gun from out-of-state for the purpose of resale. If Congress is given the authority to restrict the disposition of any object that has ever been engaged in interstate commerce or might conceivably be so engaged in future, then Article I.8 should simply say "Congress shall have the authority to impose such rules and restrictions, with regard to any and all artifacts, it sees fit."
You'd better go back and re-read the Debates. Also, pay a little more attention to Amend 9. You can't use one part of the FedCon's Art 1 Sect 8 power to overwrite other parts of the Constitution. It negates the whole document.
There's nothing arbitrary about having a list of prohibited persons and keeping them from engaging in any market.
Yes there is. Who gets to define who is "sane"? Dems get in control and you could easily have VPC writing the statute. Just wanting to own a gun in the first place could be a "mental health disqualification".
Think it through instead of just sitting there spouting crap.
LOL........it’ll be a hoot !
We’re expecting bad snik storm this afternoon thru tomorrow morning.....20 degrees, 50mph winds, 3-6 inches of snow. Typical Panhandle winter weather.
I will check back later for sure !!
In the absense of legislation madating Cho's name be on the prohibited persons list, Cho was able to engage in the legitimate firearms market. Cho had been adjudicated a danger to self after being arrested for stalking female strangers. The State of VA decided not to voluntarily forward that info to the NICS dbase, as per fed request. This law says all states must forward that kind of info.
We're due for snow here, but I'm off work here in anotehr half hour. Probably won't be on again until after Christmas.
Just in case, Good luck. Merry Christmas and a blessed Yule... ;-)
Legislation like this feeds into the culture of Fear the liberals have been building up around the issue of self defense. It isn't needed and does a LOT more harm than good. Never give your potential enemies a sharp stick they will eventually use to poke you with.
Back at you and yours as well......Merry Christmas my friend !!
Stay safe !
Cho was not adjudicated to be a sufficient danger to justify denying his freedom? If so, he should have been locked up. If not, then he was a free person.
If judges are given the authority to disarm people without locking them up, you can bet that many of them will do so with even the tiniest sliver of vague justification. I see no good reason to give judges that option.
If the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right of all free persons, who does it really protect? One may reasonably quibble about which people should be 'free' or 'not free', but one shouldn't lose sight of what disarmament means.
Apparently, you missed the part where it says....
PROCESS..Each application for relief submitted under the program required by this subparagraph shall be processed not later than 365 days after the receipt of the application. If a Federal department or agency fails to resolve an application for relief within 365 days for any reason, including a lack of appropriated funds, the department or agency shall be deemed for all purposes to have denied such request for relief without cause. Judicial review of any petitions brought under this clause shall be de novo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.