Gun control supporters - Local gun control

[Emsworth]

So, long story short, the Second Amendment pertains only to the militia, and not the general public, and therefore the blanket statement that all citizens have the right to own weapons without limitations is false.

If any government can decide what weapons people may or may not own (itself a doubtful proposition), then it is the government of the states. The federal government certainly has no authority.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8.

These clauses only allow Congress to regulate the militia. Nothing here indicates that Congress may regulate the bearing of arms by the people in general (those who are not members of the militia).

[MODU]

These clauses only allow Congress to regulate the militia. Nothing here indicates that Congress may regulate the bearing of arms by the people in general (those who are not members of the militia).

And nothing in the Constitution says they cannot either, since the Amendment is only dealing with the purpose of the militia, and not the general public.

[Emsworth]

And nothing in the Constitution says they cannot either...

As I said, Congress cannot pass a law unless it is actually authorized by the Constitution. To state that Congress may pass any law it pleases, unless there is a specific clause prohibiting that specific action, would ignore all constitutional jurisprudence whatsoever and completely disregard the federal system on which this nation is founded. The federal government only has those powers actually delegated to it, and none other.

[MODU]

And nothing in the Constitution says they cannot either...

As I said, Congress cannot pass a law unless it is actually authorized by the Constitution. To state that Congress may pass any law it pleases, unless there is a specific clause prohibiting that specific action, would ignore all constitutional jurisprudence whatsoever and completely disregard the federal system on which this nation is founded. The federal government only has those powers actually delegated to it, and none other.

So, for the last 150+ years, most of the stuff crossing the Congresses plate has been unconstitutional?  Of course not, because the Constitution is not as restrictive as you make it sound.  The drafters of the Constitution knew that there were so many things in the world that it could not predict, that the Consitution was written in general terms (which is why it is so short compared to most of the Consitutions around the world).  The Constitution is the foundation under our feat, not the burden on our shoulders as some try to make it sound.  When something that has been passed is unconsitutional, it is over-ridden by the Supreme Court.  Obviously all of our gun laws are no unconsitutional since they are still in place.

[Emsworth]

So, for the last 150+ years, most of the stuff crossing the Congresses plate has been unconstitutional?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because the Supreme Court has not taken action, or has taken the wrong action, it does not follow that what the government has been doing is unconstitutional. For nearly a century after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court took no action against segregation. Does that mean that segregation was constitutional?

Which clause authorizes the passage of federal gun laws?

[A18]

The fact that Congress can exercise only its enumerated powers is specified in the Tenth Amendment, and not in any way open to question.

The debate is not over that. The argument liberals like yourself make (the difference being they have some training in constitutional law, and don't just assert a bunch of really silly nonsense) is that the Commerce Clause authorizes this sort of action.

The Supreme Court can be wrong.

[MODU]

Which clause authorizes the passage of federal gun laws?

Like I said, the Constitution is not burdensome to list specific powers as "federal gun laws."  Being an expert in the Constitution, you should know that.  Just as there is no statement in the Constitution saying Congress cannot pass federal gun laws.

[A18]

Okay, it's clear MODU is just making random stabs in the dark. He still can not answer which part of the Constitution authorizes federal gun laws.

[John Dibble]

''The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.'' United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

''The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.'' United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941).

''Interference with the power of the States was no constitutional criterion of the power of Congress. If the power was not given, Congress could not exercise it; if given, they might exercise it, although it should interfere with the laws, or even the Constitutions of the States.'' 2 Annals of Congress 1897 (1791). (stated by James Madison)

[MODU]

Okay, it's clear MODU is just making random stabs in the dark. He still can not answer which part of the Constitution authorizes federal gun laws.

I'm not going to repeat the fact that the there is not a specific line in the Constitution that authorizes federal gun legislation, just like there is not a line that bars the same legislation.  Just like there is nothing in the Constitution authorizes federal nuclear weapon legislation.

[A18]

If it is not authorized, it is not constitutional.

[MODU]

If it is not authorized, it is not constitutional.

hahaha . . . ok, if you say so.  *dies laughin* 

[Emsworth]

I'm not going to repeat the fact that the there is not a specific line in the Constitution that authorizes federal gun legislation, just like there is not a line that bars the same legislation. 

Unless there is some part of the Constitution that authorizes it, a federal law is unconstitutional. The argument that the federal government may do anything unless specifically prohibited is contrary to the original Constitution, and even more so to the Tenth Amendment.

A18 is correct.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, the federal government can build nuclear weapons; this is a part of the power to support armies.

[A18]

Absolutely no one, without any exception whatsoever, on any court in the land has made the argument you are making.

Some do argue that the Commerce Clause authorizes gun control. You are simply too clueless to argue any constitutional matter on a legitimate basis, and so you instead claim that Congress is not bound by its enumerated powers: a joke position, contradicted by the plain text of the document.

Watch it. -Alcon

[The 2nd Constitarian]

You are a ****ing idiot. I don't think you realize how dumb you are. Absolutely no one, without any exception whatsoever, on any court in the land has made the argument you are making.

Some do argue that the Commerce Clause authorizes gun control. You are simply too clueless to argue any constitutional matter on a legitimate basis, and so you instead claim that Congress is not bound by its enumerated powers: a joke position, contradicted by the plain text of the document.

You're a fool. Go get a brain.

All gun control laws are unconstitutional, if therr was a way to bring the founding father back to life they would agree with me.

[MODU]

Unless there is some part of the Constitution that authorizes it, a federal law is unconstitutional. The argument that the federal government may do anything unless specifically prohibited is contrary to the original Constitution, and even more so to the Tenth Amendment.

Close, but not quite.  "Unconstitutional" means it is in direct contradiction what is listed in the Constitution.  Aconstitutional (for the lack of a better term) powers are reserved by the Congress under various grounds, including the general welfare and comerce clauses.  

You are a ****ing idiot.

And no, I'm not.  I'm old, bald, and I sometimes get lost in thought, but definitely not an idiot.

[Emsworth]

Close, but not quite.  "Unconstitutional" means it is in direct contradiction what is listed in the Constitution.  Aconstitutional (for the lack of a better term) powers are reserved by the Congress under various grounds, including the general welfare and comerce clauses.

The distinction you make between "unconstitutional" and "aconstitutional" legislation is arbitrary and capricious. A legal provision is either constitutional, or it is not constitutional; there is no middle ground.

The powers of Congress (and I mean true powers, not those that the Supreme Court has invented) under the commerce clause are not "aconstitutional." They are just as valid as any other enumerated powers. 

Furthermore, to argue that Congress is not restrained by the enumeration of certain powers ignores almost all constitutional jurisprudence whatsoever, not to mention the explicit text of the Tenth Amendment.

[MODU]

The distinction you make between "unconstitutional" and "aconstitutional" legislation is arbitrary and capricious. A legal provision is either constitutional, or it is not constitutional; there is no middle ground.

It's the easiest way to show that Congress does have the right to pass laws that are not specifically layed out in the Constitution, like the right to pass federal gun legislation (which is what triggered the recent debate).  Now where does it say that congress can pass such legislation, just like it doesn't say it can't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never said they were not restrained.

[Emsworth]

It's the easiest way to show that Congress does have the right to pass laws that are not specifically layed out in the Constitution, like the right to pass federal gun legislation (which is what triggered the recent debate).

In order for a federal law to be constitutional, it must be made in pursuance of one or more enumerated powers. You have not yet indicated which enumerated power Congress is exercising when making gun laws. On the contrary, you seem to have argued that the enumeration of a power is entirely unnecessary in order for a law to be constitutional.

[MODU]

It's the easiest way to show that Congress does have the right to pass laws that are not specifically layed out in the Constitution, like the right to pass federal gun legislation (which is what triggered the recent debate).

In order for a federal law to be constitutional, it must be made in pursuance of one or more enumerated powers. You have not yet indicated which enumerated power Congress is exercising when making gun laws. On the contrary, you seem to have argued that the enumeration of a power is entirely unnecessary in order for a law to be constitutional.

If you want specifics, you can probably use the commerce clause since gun sales and transportation cross state lines.  You can use general welfare clause since we are to ensure the safety of our citizens by keeping certain types of weapons out of the hands of the general public which are designed for combat, as well as ensuring people who lack the mental responsibility to posess weapons safely in society without putting others at risk. 

What I was saying earlier is that the Second Amendment does not pertain to the posession of guns by the general public since the organized militia role has been assigned to the national guard units.  To say that it pertains to the general public is wrong, since the state definitions of the militia at the time of ratification was young, able bodied men with military disciple, and therefore right there shows that the right was not a blanket right for all citizens.  Therefore, federal gun laws do not violate this amendment.

[A18]

The general welfare clause is a spending power. It is not a generic lawmaking power.

A gun purchased within a single state is not interstate commerce. Interstate commerce is the shipping of goods and services across state lines.

[Emsworth]

The general welfare clause is a spending power. It is not a generic lawmaking power.

Embracing Madison's interpretation (rather than Hamilton's), I would go even further: the term "general welfare" is only a convenient means of referring to all the other enumerated powers, and does not confer any independent spending authority.

Moreover, the debt, common defense, and general welfare clauses are not powers at all, but rather restrictions--limitations on the power to tax.

[MODU]

The general welfare clause is a spending power. It is not a generic lawmaking power.

 It is a spending power, but it is also design to defend the general public.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but there are not gun manufacturers in every state, so laws regarding guns fall under interstate commerce.  States that do have gun manufacturers are:  Illinois, Tenessee, Maryland, Utah, Connecticut, South Dakota, Arizona, Florida, South Carolina, and a few others.  Now, if you want to buy a Colt, for example, you would have to drive up to Connecticut to buy it.  So, as long as companies don't want to sell their stuff outside of their state, they would be subjected to only the state laws on gun ownership.  However, most companies would not do that.

[Emsworth]

It is a spending power, but it is also design to defend the general public.

If it is a power in the first place, then, at most, the general welfare clause is a spending power. Congress cannot make any particular action illegal under the general welfare clause.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is a very strained interpretation of the terms "commerce ... among the states." Interstate commerce does not exist when there is no transportation across state lines. If a citizen of a particular state purchases a gun from a manufacturer in the same state, then his action is not subject to federal regulation, no matter what the situation is in any other state.

As John Marshall held in Gibbons v. Ogden, the commerce clause does not extend to "commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State."

[John Dibble]

MODU, are you going to just ignore my earlier quotes?(maybe you just didn't see them) Basically they relate to the tenth amendment, saying that any power not granted(enumerated) to Congress may only be exercised by the states. Two are Supreme Court cases, one is a statement by James Madison(who need I remind you is regarded as the father of the constitution).