Posted on 05/04/2009 6:32:20 AM PDT by marktwain
OTOH....Texas may have to build a wall ON THEIR NORTHERN BORDER!
That is true, so far as it goes. There is no case law that I know of that combines the 10th, 2nd, and 9th amendments. Lopez says that mere possession of a firearm is not interstate commerce, and the 9th circuit agreed with that in U.S. vs Stewart.
Wickard needs to be reversed. It is an abomination to the Constitution, and reversed many decades of precident.
This bill has just been introduced, but it certainly would be nice to see it enacted.
This bill was introduced on 2/26/09 and assigned to the Public Safety committeed on 3/4/09 with public hearings held on 4/27/09 and reported out of committee on 5/01/09. Hopefully it will get taken up by the full House and then on to the Senate. The bill has eight authors/co-authors . The Legislature ends on June 1, 09. The Legislators have been busy this session filing some 7,154 bills about 1000 more than last session. Usually somewhere around 25% make it through the process.
Sure like to see some ammo and gun dealers move their manufacturing facilities out here. they will be met with open arms and not the subject of constant harassment and lawsuits like other states deal ‘em.
“Sure like to see some ammo and gun dealers move their manufacturing facilities out here. they will be met with open arms and not the subject of constant harassment and lawsuits like other states deal ‘em.”
“...met with open arms...”?
We will have parades, charity auctions, high shool bands with baton twirlers. Picnics for the whole family.
My weapon is an extension of my freedom...I will not surrender either......EVER!
This is true, and its damage goes far beyond firearms law. Unfortunately I'm not sure even Scalia would be on board this (though he would scale it back). Thomas is probably the only justice who would actually overturn it given the opportunity.
Needs to be fixed. Shotguns would not be covered.
Again, full auto is specifically excluded from such legislation.
The bill is great and I hope it passes; I just keep wondering what’s not being told about the third-rail attitude toward MGs.
This is true, and its damage goes far beyond firearms law. Unfortunately I'm not sure even Scalia would be on board this (though he would scale it back). Thomas is probably the only justice who would actually overturn it given the opportunity.
Indeed. I would have said that Scalia would have been on board except for his poor performance with “Gonzales v. Raich”, where he said that homegrown marijuana that *was not sold* could be regulated by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause!
But that possession affects interstate commerce, and such a recitation must appear in the federal law that prohibits handguns w/in XX feet of a school. The Lopez decision was gutted months after its passage. It's holding is facile.
Scalia is a gun grabber.
Scalia: We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." [All of Scalia's conclusions in this vein depend on the scope of government regulatory power being congruent with "in common use," which is downright handy when the government can regulate things out of common use] We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." [1) notice the stated historical prohibition is on carrying, not on keeping, and 2) cites omitted, but they do not support a conclusion that the US government can constitutionally ban the private possession of a dangerous and unusual weapon, let alone Scalia's outcome that it can constitutionally ban a small arm in common use by the military]It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. [Here he seems to be saying that the government may ban M-16s and weapons that are useful in military service] But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. [Notice he does not probe the scope of "lawful weapons possessed at home" at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification] It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. [Unusual is not the measure, and even if it was, "highly unusual" in this instance is bootstrapped from government restriction] Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. [He neutralizes the Miller Court's statement -- "weapon [that] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or [which] use could contribute to the common defense [is in the scope of 2nd amendment protection]" -- without explanation]
Wickard V Fillburn violates the Art 6 Para 2 prohibition placed on Judges. They are not allowed to re-write laws or entire Clauses in the Constitution.
I believe you are mistaken. Lopez was cited in United States v. Stewart, where the 9th circuit held that homemade machine-guns did not fall under jurisdiction of the Federal government because they were not involved in interstate commerce.
SCOTUS directed the 9th Circuit to reconsider Stewart and be guided in that reconsideration by Raich. The result:
"We therefore hold that Congress had a rational basis for concluding that in the aggregate, possession of homemade machineguns could substantially affect interstate commerce in machineguns."
Could you please send me a link for that quote. I’d like to read the whole thing.
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.