Posted on 10/01/2011 5:02:33 AM PDT by marktwain
A federal lawsuit filed in Texas last year seeks to repeal the prohibition, as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, on handgun purchases by 18 to 20-year-olds from licensed dealers. That lawsuit has hit a snag, with U.S. District Judge Samuel Cummings dismissing it yesterday. From the Statesman:
In a 17-page order, U.S. District Judge Samuel Cummings dismissed a challenge to a 32-year-old [actually 42] federal law barring handgun sales by licensed gun dealers to people under the age of 21.
Judge Cummings' rationale is especially . . . interesting:
"The Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” the ruling states. “The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.
But wait a second--"by those not disqualified from the exercise" of a Constitutional right? If the government can arbitrarily deem some citizens "unworthy" of a right, and "disqualify" them from it's exercise, how can it even be a right? What distinguishes it from a mere privilege, to be granted or denied at whim? If 18-year-olds are unworthy of the right (or privilege) of self-defense, who else might be so deemed some time in the future? He continues:
It is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition.
No, your honor--it is most definitely within the purview of the courts to rein in the legislature's unconstitutional excesses through judicial review. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, what good are you?
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Bad answer. The federal government may be permitted to restrict the age of adults who purchase alcohol, but only because drinking is not a constitutional right. Once a US citizen reaches age 18, restricting the individual right to keep and bear arms is beyond the scope of legitimate federal power. "Shall not be infringed" means that this right shall not be infringed (confusing for liberals, but if they read carefully, they will see that I am right).
When and what was the reason, for the first restriction on the 2nd, to wit; .. a felon cannot own a firearm ... and simular restrictions.
Welcome to serfdom.
I agree that the Interstate Commerce Clause has been used as a catch all that rarely makes sense to anyone other than the judges who use it.
The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.
Nothing has changed.
Sadly, in much of America, the RKBA is a privilege. The Heller and McDonald rulings have only laid the foundations in the battle to reclaim our rights. We can’t give Obama another 4 years to appoint more liberal judges.
Actually the Militia Act of 1903 gives a mininum age of militia members of 17.
A Judge that does not understand that our Rights come from God our Creator and NOT government has no business being a judge.
This judge should be removed from the bench immediately.
On July 31, 1987, Cummings was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
It also flows from the corrupt reading of Miller and Presser, by judges.
Welcome to serfdom. Well said. Corrosion once begin -like the infringements upon the right to keep and bear arms tend to increase like any other behavior as encouraged. Simple physics. When I was in Panama the need for proper maintanence of our gear increased mold and rust could attach to any piece in a matter of just a few days one could readily see the effect of neglect. Same with our rights. This Judge is so used to the Constitution being a thing of wax in his/her/ its hands the entire written Constitution has been so corrupted by him/her/it— that they anticipate No credible resistance to their errant argument.Welcome to serfdom!
It's all about POWER. Rights exist to the extent people will fight for them, and are taken to the extent the government is willing to use its force.
“The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.”
Say what? I just read it again, and the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not contain any phrase that starts with “except...”
It’s time to take back the country. Pitchin’ out activist judges with substandard reading skills is a good start.
The exercise of those rights is absolutely made possible only if people fight for them. If the government uses force, and the people do not, then we cannot exercise our rights.
But we still have them. They are inalienable.
Why don’t we just IMPEACH these damn leftist Judges? IMHO it just takes a simple majority of the State Senate to do so.
I just don’t get the problem.
We may all see the right to bear arms as an irrevocable right but those that run the media and run the country may not, and I’m not speaking D or R specifically.
If the “powers that be” ever wished to take away firearms from the people they would need to change public opinion first. How would they do that? A series of false flag events with subsequent media coverage would soon stigmatize owners of firearms as potential terrorists. Next they’d buy out and hijack the leadership in advocate organizations such as the NRA. If you don’t know it by now, we the public can be led around by the nose at the whim of the so-called “powers that be”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_powers_that_be_(phrase)
Yet a simple reading show the conjunction 'and', making it a bilateral function of the same power.
To regulate foreign commerce with the states and to regulate foreign commerce with the Indian tribes.
The problem, IMHO, is the interpretation of 'among the several States'. While originally I thought it was to regulate commerce State to State, I have since learned it is part of the taxation power....to direct foreign goods to the various ports of entry so each State gets a portion of the taxes.
-----
Mr. MADISON was surprised that any gentleman should return to the clauses which had already been discussed. He begged the gentleman to read the clauses which gave the power of exclusive legislation, and he might see that nothing could be done without the consent of the states. With respect to the supposed operation of what was denominated the sweeping clause, the gentleman, he said, was mistaken; for it only extended to the enumerated powers. Should Congress attempt to extend it to any power not enumerated, it would not be warranted by the clause. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress; namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 / Elliot's Debates, Volume 3, page 455
A direct consequence of this power of regulating commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, is that of establishing ports; or such places of entry, lading, and unlading, as may be most convenient for the merchant on the one hand, and for the easy and effectual collection of the revenue from customs, on the other.
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries
Here on earth, the ability to exercise rights is always a struggle, as you point out.
-- They are inalienable. --
That word, "inalienable," is often held as some talisman, almost "religious" significance. But really, it's just an adjective, like "blue" or "heavy."
Some things can be alienated. You can alienate your car, your house, your money, and pretty much any possession. Basically meaning you can transfer control over it (possession, the right to exclude, etc.) to somebody else. But it is simply impossible to transfer your life to somebody else - making life "inalienable."
When one reads the Declaration of Independence in that light, it doesn't lose any of its rhetorical power.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I don't know about you, but I am way past "consent of the governed." I give the government the same legitimacy as I give the mafia. The government is dishonest, it is corrupt, it has vastly exceeded the powers granted to it, and it maintains control by brute force. While the government does exercise some "just powers," in the balance, it is and has been destructive of the things that made the US a good and strong country.
Right. How does a “right” morph into a priviledge? Only Marxists can say what is really white is black.
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.