Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 1/11/2006 5:32:32 PM EDT
http://www.gunlawsuits.org/alito/unconstitutional.php


DO NOT HOTLINK!
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:36:57 PM EDT
If he's got those loons all riled up, he's probably a pretty good choice!
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:40:18 PM EDT

Originally posted by CRC:
Is the machinegun ban unconstitutional?



In a word?

FUGGINARIGHT!

HS1
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:40:45 PM EDT
That depends on your definition of "infringe"

If you believe it means something like "make it harder to get" then yes it is unconstitutional.

If you believe it means something like "stop you from getting" then no it is not.

Again, it's all about interpretation. We can still get them, but it's just really hard and costly.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:41:36 PM EDT
Of course it is
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:46:40 PM EDT
How the Gun Grabbers saw the events at Waco.

Waco, Texas — Branch Davidian Shootout

Perhaps even more notorious than the West Hollywood shootout, the 51-day government siege of David Koresh's Branch Davidian complex near Waco, Texas on February 28, 1993, was initiated because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) learned that Koresh and his followers had been converting semi-automatic weapons into illegal fully automatic machine guns.

A large group of federal agents, attempting to execute a search warrant of the Branch Davidian compound were met by a hail of machine gun fire from Koresh's followers. Four officers were killed and twenty were wounded in the ensuing firefight. (Many other Branch Davidians were killed by their own gunfire.) Koresh's followers had access to a much larger arsenal than the two North Hollywood bank robbers, and it required the government to bring in an army of federal agents and very heavy firepower to subdue the Davidian compound.


These people are beyond reason and logic.

I hope Alito is for real.

HS1
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 5:58:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dusty_C:
That depends on your definition of "infringe"

If you believe it means something like "make it harder to get" then yes it is unconstitutional.

If you believe it means something like "stop you from getting" then no it is not.

Again, it's all about interpretation. We can still get them, but it's just really hard and costly.




Actually, in most of the cases discussed on that site, it depends on what it means to regulate interstate commerce. In most of those cases, the Second Amendment wasn't even raised.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:02:52 PM EDT
Yes it is, based not only on the 2nd amendment, but also on the commerce clause (though SCOTUS has really perverted that one) as well as -- nobody every mentions this -- the 14th amendment
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:05:01 PM EDT
Yes.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:05:21 PM EDT
I was talking about in general.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:06:16 PM EDT
How bout Kind of.

Using the whole commerce clause and what not.

They can ban the interstate sale and transfure of MG but not the owning a MG or the Manufactur for Intrastate sales

Wow Im tired.

I hope this gets my point across
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:07:45 PM EDT
United States v. Rambo? Wow.

Well, I can understand why he was challenging the constitutionality of the MG ban.

It'd be nice to see the MG ban struck down, as well as the GCA, etc. I just can't bring myself to believe it ever will be...
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:16:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jblachly:
Yes it is, based not only on the 2nd amendment, but also on the commerce clause (though SCOTUS has really perverted that one) as well as -- nobody every mentions this -- the 14th amendment



Perhaps nobody mentions it because the 14th restricts the states, not the feds.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 6:21:46 PM EDT
simple: if it infringes then it is illegal
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:03:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 7:04:37 PM EDT by cyrax777]

Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:

Originally Posted By jblachly:
Yes it is, based not only on the 2nd amendment, but also on the commerce clause (though SCOTUS has really perverted that one) as well as -- nobody every mentions this -- the 14th amendment



Perhaps nobody mentions it because the 14th restricts the states, not the feds.


if im reading your point correctly is that no the feds cant but the states could? please correct me if im reading it wrong.
thats like saying its ok for the states to regulate religion but not ok for the feds.

if the feds cant do it neither can the states is the way the constituional limits on power was taught to me.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:05:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:07:25 PM EDT
I dunno...lets see what tc556guy has to say
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:09:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
I dunno...lets see what tc556guy has to say



I have to admit he has built himself quite a reputation here. We can pretty well much guess what he has to say about the MG ban. And it ain't pretty.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:21:49 PM EDT
Yes, Unconstitutional and illegal.

Anyone, especially government officials, who have infringed upon the second ammendment should be prosecuted and serve lengthy jail sentences.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:24:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cyrax777:

Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:

Originally Posted By jblachly:
Yes it is, based not only on the 2nd amendment, but also on the commerce clause (though SCOTUS has really perverted that one) as well as -- nobody every mentions this -- the 14th amendment



Perhaps nobody mentions it because the 14th restricts the states, not the feds.


if im reading your point correctly is that no the feds cant but the states could? please correct me if im reading it wrong.
thats like saying its ok for the states to regulate religion but not ok for the feds.

if the feds cant do it neither can the states is the way the constituional limits on power was taught to me.



actually, the states used to be able to restrict federal rights(your example of religion brings up Massachussettes which declared Catholicism the state religion), but not anymore, virtue the 14th amendment. If the 14th amendment were revoked, there would be nothing prohibiting CA,NY, CT,etc. from outright banning firearm possession.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:27:10 PM EDT

one of the links on the side:

Background - Judge Alito's Dissent Arguing That The Federal Machine Gun Ban Is Unconstitutional Is Right-Wing Judicial Activism And A Threat To Federal Gun Laws


I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a threat to Federal Gun Laws

Ever wonder why the Founding Fathers made it the second? Apparently the only thing more important was freedom of speech, religion, peaceable assembly, petitioning.

Look at the top/first five:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:30:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 7:31:21 PM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

Originally Posted By cyrax777:

Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:

Originally Posted By jblachly:
Yes it is, based not only on the 2nd amendment, but also on the commerce clause (though SCOTUS has really perverted that one) as well as -- nobody every mentions this -- the 14th amendment



Perhaps nobody mentions it because the 14th restricts the states, not the feds.


if im reading your point correctly is that no the feds cant but the states could? please correct me if im reading it wrong.
thats like saying its ok for the states to regulate religion but not ok for the feds.

if the feds cant do it neither can the states is the way the constituional limits on power was taught to me.



actually, the states used to be able to restrict federal rights(your example of religion brings up Massachussettes which declared Catholicism the state religion), but not anymore, virtue the 14th amendment. If the 14th amendment were revoked, there would be nothing prohibiting CA,NY, CT,etc. from outright banning firearm possession.



Negatory on that one good buddy.
Massachusetts was Congregational.
Only refuge for Catholics in those days was Maryland.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:47:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cyrax777:

Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:

Originally Posted By jblachly:
Yes it is, based not only on the 2nd amendment, but also on the commerce clause (though SCOTUS has really perverted that one) as well as -- nobody every mentions this -- the 14th amendment



Perhaps nobody mentions it because the 14th restricts the states, not the feds.


if im reading your point correctly is that no the feds cant but the states could? please correct me if im reading it wrong.
thats like saying its ok for the states to regulate religion but not ok for the feds.

if the feds cant do it neither can the states is the way the constituional limits on power was taught to me.



That's not what my post meant, but it's entirely plausible that the US Constitiution doesn't prevent the states from banning guns.

The dispute in the cases cited in the article involves Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce unde the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In the early 19th Century, no one would have thought that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce allowed it to ban possession of a firearm. "Commerce" was understood to mean buying and selling, and "interstate" was understood to mean interstate. Ever since the New Deal, Congress has been free to regulate pretty much anything that eve travelled in interstate commerce as well as any sort of economic activity that might, in the aggregate, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Thus, Congress can ban growing marijuana for private medical use in California even though it's never bought or sold and never crosses state lines. All in the name of regulating interstate commerce.

Under the Constitution, the federal government is supposed to be one of limited, enumerated powers. The Commerce Clause is one limited grant of authority. States, on the other hand, have more general regulatory powers. States can regulate based on their general police power; they don't need a Commerce Clause justification for regulation. So even if all federal laws regulating intrastate possession of firearms were declared unconstitutional exercises of power under the Commerce Clause, that would have no effect on state laws that did exactly the same thing.

Which brings us to the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is another issue entirely. When the Constitution was written, everyone understood that the Bill of Rights were restrictions on federal power. There's lots of early case law to this effect. While there may be an odd 19th century state court opinion holding that the Second Amendment applies to the state, the overwhelming weight of authority held that it didn't. Back then, the First Amendment didn't apply to the states either.

Which brings us to the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment comes into play only insofar as the "due process" and/or "privileges and immunities" clause might make the Second Amendment applicable to the states. Sometime around the 1890s (IIRC), the Supreme Court invented the Incorporation Doctrine, and over the years the court has determined that the Fourteenth Amendment applied some, but not all, of the Bill of Rights to the states. For instance, the First Amendment free speech, press, association and religion stuff applies to the states. The Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in cvil cases where the value in controversy exceeds $20 does not.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second. (However, it did rule that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states after the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted but before the court developed the incorporation doctrine.) I've never heard a good argument why the Fourteenth Amendment would incorporate the First Amendment but not the Second, but it is still an open quesiton, and it's one that the court could answer in an anti-RKBA way without overruling any precedent.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:51:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By danpass:
one of the links on the side:

Background - Judge Alito's Dissent Arguing That The Federal Machine Gun Ban Is Unconstitutional Is Right-Wing Judicial Activism And A Threat To Federal Gun Laws


I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a threat to Federal Gun Laws





Funny thing about that. In the case they're talking about, the defendants said that the machinegun ban exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and that it violated the Second Amendment.

The Third Circuit said did not, did not. Alito's dissent said that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. He didn't address the Second Amendment issue.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:53:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
I dunno...lets see what tc556guy has to say



i may not be a team member but i just had to jump on his case one day
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:59:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scotty1911:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
I dunno...lets see what tc556guy has to say



i may not be a team member but i just had to jump on his case one day



Yeah, I could see him standing in line to enlist as one of the new brownshirts...oh, too late.

-Ben
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:01:41 PM EDT
JohnTheTexican thanks for clarifying.

then agien as far as the states regulation arms alot of states well atleast Az does also have our own equivilant of the 2nd amendment.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:04:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JohnTheTexican:

Originally Posted By danpass:
one of the links on the side:

Background - Judge Alito's Dissent Arguing That The Federal Machine Gun Ban Is Unconstitutional Is Right-Wing Judicial Activism And A Threat To Federal Gun Laws


I believe that the 2nd Amendment is a threat to Federal Gun Laws





Funny thing about that. In the case they're talking about, the defendants said that the machinegun ban exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and that it violated the Second Amendment.

The Third Circuit said did not, did not. Alito's dissent said that Congress exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. He didn't address the Second Amendment issue.



Agreed.

I was generalizing in the first part.



A wealthy man said to me, one time:
90% of the problems will stem from these four words:

Its all about money
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:10:43 PM EDT
Right now the States pretty much can do what they want under the 2nd, hence the patchwork of state laws. (real world, the way things really are NOT the way you THINK things oughta be), the 2nd limits the Feds ONLY. IF and IF it ever gets incorporated using the 14th, then potentially it will apply against the states also. Which is why we in many states need a favorable incorporation case. We also need a case that finds that the Commerce lause laws infringe on the 2nd.

We need both. One without the other won't help the vast majority of us.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:21:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RockHard13F:

Originally Posted By scotty1911:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
I dunno...lets see what tc556guy has to say



i may not be a team member but i just had to jump on his case one day



Yeah, I could see him standing in line to enlist as one of the new brownshirts...oh, too late.

-Ben





No shit!
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:23:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 8:25:23 PM EDT by JohnTheTexican]

Originally Posted By cyrax777:
JohnTheTexican thanks for clarifying.

then agien as far as the states regulation arms alot of states well atleast Az does also have our own equivilant of the 2nd amendment.



Texas has one of those too. Art. 1 Sec. 23: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

There's also a 19th Century Texas Supreme Court case--Exglish v. State (one of those odd 19th century state cases suggesting that the Second Amendment applies to the states)-- that talks about how the "well regulated militia" clause affects the "right to keep and bear arms" in the US Constitution:


The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.


So next time some anti says that the "well regulated militia" bit means that the right belongs to the National Guard, explain that it in fact clarifies that the "arms" you have the right to "keep and bear" include a field piece, a siege gun, and a mortar.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:39:05 PM EDT
If you think it is, What about the law stating ex felons cannot own firearms?...............
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:48:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mwood65:
If you think it is, What about the law stating ex felons cannot own firearms?...............



Unconstitutional as well.
You serve your time, you have paid your debt.
Of course, this would mean a re-vamping of the penal system as well...
Life means life, death penalty gets enacted swiftly, etc.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:48:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mwood65:
If you think it is, What about the law stating ex felons cannot own firearms?...............



Rights can be lost thru "due process"
That is my opinion on it.
Many of the other reasons for denying that right are clearly unconstitutional and very definitely do not fall in the sam realm as convicted felons.

However, if the choice is only between no guns for anyone or for absolutely everyone I choose the latter if for no other reason than the criminals will have them anyway. Beyond that however, I still maintain my basic right to self preservation and the RKBA.
Top Top