Gun store Shooting Locations It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:08 pm



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me Shield NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Forum rules


Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as legal advice. All members and guests are advised to perform due diligence in regards to laws and legal actions.



Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 Five gun reform laws that Mr Trump can act quickly upon 
Author Message
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Rochester, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
ANZAC wrote:
jdhbulseye wrote:
I believe you are absolutely 100% wrong on this.

It is a specifically enumerated power of congress:

Quote:
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;


That and the fact that the 2A is incorporated against the states, or maybe even without regard to incorporation, means the congress could pass a law allowing CC or OC as part of their power to "discipline" the militia. That law would also simultaneously strike down state laws barring CC or OC.


That's a stretch. Where is the organizing? Where is the discipline? I would contend this is the national guard.
I don't ascribe to the reading of the 2A that the people are the militia.
I do support the WA constitution and law that clearly enumerates it.

Now, go and read the 10th amendment...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Ame ... ution#Text

Also, read this:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43033.pdf

And US v Lopez:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... t_decision


Wrong again.

Quote:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

In US v Lopex the government argued their authority came from the commerce clause. Which was ruled against them. It has no bearing whatsoever on their authority under the clause which I stated (militia). So that point is irrelevant to my argument that they could use for their authority the militia clause. If they legislated and then argued challenges from that authority their case would be much stronger as there is a much stronger connection between arms and militia.

I know what the tenth amendment says, it has no relevance to a specifically enumerated power of congress except that the clause reserves to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress e.g. if congress wanted to they could go as far as saying that the states must provide pistol training to all of the militia annually at the states expense. Since the power to organize and discipline the militia is a specific power of federal congress it is a power "delegated to the United States by the Constitution", not "prohibited by it to the States", and not "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

ANZAC wrote:
Where is the organizing? Where is the discipline?


Just because federal congress has shirked its duty (as have the states) to discipline and organize the part of the militia that isn't the national guard doesn't mean they forfeit the right to do so now. And just because you or someone else thinks their "disciplining or organizing" of that part of the militia isn't adequate doesn't mean they have forfeited that right either. They might do a shitty job or not do the job at all but the constitution still says its their job.

Its not a stretch, especially given the fact that there are terrorist and criminal mass shooting attacks in this country. All congress has to say (in a bill) as justification is that it promotes domestic security of the US and the states to have the militia armed in their day-to-day lives in order that they may intervene in a mass shooting, terrorist attack, or other nefarious crime. And for authority the militia clause in their enumerated powers is all they need. And if they wanted to they could amend Title 10 USC Section 311 to broaden or narrow who the unorganized militia is.

Yes, the people are the militia, by law starting with the 2A. Maybe you have watched too much Young Turks or something. If you actually do research about the 2A and all the attendant correspondence and discussions back when the bill of rights was being debated it was in fact viewed by the vast majority of our statesmen as the whole people. This National Guard bullshit was actually viewed as a "select militia" and specifically addressed, some saw it as a potential way the government could wither the strength of the broader militia, i.e. the people. hmmm...odd how that seems to have come to pass.

_________________
MadPick wrote:
Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.

Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:35 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Rochester, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
NWGunner wrote:
There is a chance the scope of what 2A entails could broaden a bit at some point.

One of the women judges Trump is considering for the Supreme Court is of the belief that shooting ranges are also protected under the 2nd Amendment


Yes, likely they are or could be, via congress's power to organize and discipline the militia.

_________________
MadPick wrote:
Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.

Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:39 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
jdhbulseye wrote:
In US v Lopex the government argued their authority came from the commerce clause.


So then explain why - if the militia argument is so over-arching and obvious - that they didn't use that argument?


Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:22 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
jdhbulseye wrote:
Its not a stretch, especially given the fact that there are terrorist and criminal mass shooting attacks in this country. All congress has to say (in a bill) as justification is that it promotes domestic security of the US and the states to have the militia armed in their day-to-day lives in order that they may intervene in a mass shooting, terrorist attack, or other nefarious crime. And for authority the militia clause in their enumerated powers is all they need. And if they wanted to they could amend Title 10 USC Section 311 to broaden or narrow who the unorganized militia is.


Also, the 10 USC definition of the militia is NOT in the constitution or bill of rights.

Therefore the 10th amendment applies:
If it isn't defined as a federal power in the constitution, are reserved to the states or the people.

Also, in Heller, they held that "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

There's no militia defined as the people in the constitution or bill of rights, and no defined power of the federal government to regulate firearms.

There's no evidence anywhere that the reference to the militia in the constitution relates to individual's ownership or use of firearms, and in fact specifically mentions the militia is for the STATES: "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;"

Also remember Heller looks at a state's ability (not the fed's ability!) to regulate individual firearm ownership.

You still have yet to show where the federal government has an enumerated constitutional power to regulate individual firearm ownership or use.
Remember, the 10th amendment - if it isn't listed in the constitution -> belongs to the states or the people.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 7:50 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Rochester, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
ANZAC wrote:
jdhbulseye wrote:
In US v Lopex the government argued their authority came from the commerce clause.


So then explain why - if the militia argument is so over-arching and obvious - that they didn't use that argument?



I stated a known fact: that Mr. lopez argued it on appeal from that specific standpoint. That's easily verified by the links you provided. I dont have to explain why they argued that specific case the way they did. I dont have to defend their strategy. I'm not a constitutional law counsel for Mr. Lopez. I am just pointing out how some sort of "CCW reciprocity" or something like it could be legislated from a legitimate constitutional and existing federal law standpoint.

You are wading into the weeds here. The Lopez decision was a question of the legitimacy of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

The first legal challenge to his criminal charge:
Quote:
Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The trial court denied the motion, ruling that §922(q) was "a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools...affects interstate commerce"


Quote:
To sustain the Act, the government was obligated to show that §922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power,[5] i.e. that the section regulated a matter which "affected" (or "substantially affected")[6] interstate commerce.


Quote:
SCOTUS held that Possession of a handgun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity.


As I understand it, because of how Mr. Lopez argued the appeal, the fundamental question that needed to be answered in the case was whether congress could regulate guns under their commerce clause powers. Not whether they could regulate guns under any of their powers. The question requiring an answer was very specific as most SCOTUS cases are.

_________________
MadPick wrote:
Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.

Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:05 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Rochester, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
Quote:
Also, the 10 USC definition of the militia is NOT in the constitution or bill of rights.

Therefore the 10th amendment applies:
If it isn't defined as a federal power in the constitution, are reserved to the states or the people.


WRONG

Specifically enumerated in the constitution Congress has the power:
Quote:
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;


Is it a bridge too far for you to concede that a part of ORGANIZING the MILITIA would be to define exactly what the fuck it consists of? The power IS defined as a federal power. Hence why Title 10 USC 311 was enacted, if you argue that they had no federal power to define what the militia consisted of how in holy fuck could they provide for organizing it?

Quote:
Also, in Heller, they held that "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

There's no militia defined as the people in the constitution or bill of rights, and no defined power of the federal government to regulate firearms.


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.

sounds to me like the definition of militia to the writer of the 2A was "the people". There are other documents of that time as I stated previously that support this assertion.

It also sounds to me like the founders wanted "the people" to have guns regardless of whether they were ever called upon to act as a militia in an official non-training capacity.

no defined power of the federal government to regulate firearms? Really?!

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

Quote:
There's no evidence anywhere that the reference to the militia in the constitution relates to individual's ownership or use of firearms, and in fact specifically mentions the militia is for the STATES: "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;"


"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Once again it sounds to me like the founders wanted individual citizens to own and use guns. Once again a little digging will show that this is exactly what the founders intended, there are a metric fuckton of historical documents to support it. Which is how you get to Heller, incidentally.

No it doesn't mention that it is for the states only, it says the fed gov can also employ them.

Quote:
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;


i.e. congress prescribes how the militia should be drilled, how its organized, etc. States have the right to appoint officers and authority to train them according to how congress says they want that done.

Quote:
Also remember Heller looks at a state's ability (not the fed's ability!) to regulate individual firearm ownership.


Which is exactly why its irrelevant to the question of whether the fed gov can regulate them, so why bring it up?

Quote:
You still have yet to show where the federal government has an enumerated constitutional power to regulate individual firearm ownership or use.
Remember, the 10th amendment - if it isn't listed in the constitution -> belongs to the states or the people.


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia

i.e. congress has authority to regulate firearms ownership as it relates to the militia, defined in law as "the people" further defined in 10USC311 (a law which extends legitimately from congress's enumerated power with regard to the militia).

_________________
MadPick wrote:
Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.

Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.


Last edited by jdhbulseye on Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:38 am, edited 3 times in total.



Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:21 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Sumner, WA
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012
Posts: 3021
Real Name: Dan
I posted earlier, in support. I gave up seeing that we were all going "round and round" in circles, in particular one individual.

It baffles my mind how some (or one) think the Bill of Rights can be regulated, in ANY shape or form.

Seriously.
:alcapone:

_________________
US2A.org is done. Closed.

From a blog: Political Correctness - the belief that one can pick up a turd by the clean end.

Benjamin Franklin: It is the (civic) responsibility of every citizen to question authority.


Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:28 am
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
jdhbulseye wrote:

Specifically enumerated in the constitution Congress has the power:
Quote:
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;


Is it a bridge too far for you to concede that a part of ORGANIZING the MILITIA would be to define exactly what the fuck it consists of? The power IS defined as a federal power. Hence why Title 10 USC 311 was enacted, if you argue that they had no federal power to define what the militia consisted of how in holy fuck could they provide for organizing it?


Here is where they discussed the provision in the constitution, nowhere was it discussed about individual firearm ownership or rights.


Quote:
Also, in Heller, they held that "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


Exactly. We're talking about concealed carry - OUTSIDE of the scope of the home.
And an individual right in the bill of rights doesn't equate to regulation by the federal government. Remember Heller was about the STATES.

And again, why did the feds not use the militia argument instead of the commerce argument in Lopez?


Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:00 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
danoh wrote:
I posted earlier, in support. I gave up seeing that we were all going "round and round" in circles, in particular one individual.

It baffles my mind how some (or one) think the Bill of Rights can be regulated, in ANY shape or form.

Seriously.
:alcapone:


Yes, I'm not sure why he doesn't just give up.

You're right, the bill of rights is NOT a guarantee that the feds have the authority to regulate something.


Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:03 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: south 'merca
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012
Posts: 9736
Real Name: Mike
ANZAC wrote:
danoh wrote:
I posted earlier, in support. I gave up seeing that we were all going "round and round" in circles, in particular one individual.

It baffles my mind how some (or one) think the Bill of Rights can be regulated, in ANY shape or form.

Seriously.
:alcapone:


Yes, I'm not sure why he doesn't just give up.

You're right, the bill of rights is NOT a guarantee that the feds have the authority to regulate something.

Regulations are a form of infringement isn't it?

_________________
"No Quarter, No Mercy"
mash_man wrote:
#gangbangerlivesmatter


Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:11 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012
Posts: 7251
Soldier_Citizen wrote:
Regulations are a form of infringement isn't it?


Not according to the SCOTUS (Heller). Only when it would completely block you from having a gun at home to defend your self and family.


Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:48 pm
Profile
Site Supporter
User avatar
Site Supporter

Location: Rochester, WA
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016
Posts: 3761
Real Name: Mr. Idgaf
ANZAC wrote:
jdhbulseye wrote:

Specifically enumerated in the constitution Congress has the power:
Quote:
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;


Is it a bridge too far for you to concede that a part of ORGANIZING the MILITIA would be to define exactly what the fuck it consists of? The power IS defined as a federal power. Hence why Title 10 USC 311 was enacted, if you argue that they had no federal power to define what the militia consisted of how in holy fuck could they provide for organizing it?


Here is where they discussed the provision in the constitution, nowhere was it discussed about individual firearm ownership or rights.


Quote:
Also, in Heller, they held that "The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


Exactly. We're talking about concealed carry - OUTSIDE of the scope of the home.
And an individual right in the bill of rights doesn't equate to regulation by the federal government. Remember Heller was about the STATES.

And again, why did the feds not use the militia argument instead of the commerce argument in Lopez?


As I said before.
Quote:
As I understand it, because of how Mr. Lopez argued the appeal, the fundamental question that needed to be answered in the case was whether congress could regulate guns under their commerce clause powers. Not whether they could regulate guns under any of their powers. The question requiring an answer was very specific as most SCOTUS cases are.


I dont know why they didn't use a different line of reasoning. Why did the lawyers defending the AMA say the fines were a tax instead of the line the admin sold the public that it was not a tax? Probably because they thought that line of reasoning would win.

The militia clause is pretty clear. If congress wanted to they could mandate that all militia members have in their possession and ready for use a very specifically defined rifle, or set of gear, or whatever, In case they needed to be called to service. They could also pass legislation that helped pay for those arms and equipment using taxpayer dollars.

All my point is is that the congress could also use that power of organizing the militia to pass a law that allowed concealed or open carry of defensive pistols (and could mandate training if they wanted to as well) in any and all states. Its up to the states to appoint officers and train the militia in accordance with the "discipline described by congress". So congress could say hey we want a yearly pistol training for all members of the militia. They could also say that in order to enhance national security we are going to make it legal for all members of the unorganized and organized militia to CC or OC their defensive pistols (excepting courtrooms, schools, etc.). They could also change the federal law which defines the militia. All of that falls within their specific power granted by the constitution and none of it abrogates the states rights also expressly spelled out in the same clause.

Defining what the militia is and how they should be "disciplined" or trained and provisioned is not a states right and never was a states right. None of this means that the government can tell you what you can or cannot own, i.e. regulating (read banning) certain commercial products that make boom.

_________________
MadPick wrote:
Without penetration data, the pics aren't of much use.

Spoiler: show
"Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean to do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves." – T.S. Eliot

"The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker

A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half. - Thomas Sowell

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow...

For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder

Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys. It realizes the ancient dream of the Jovian thunderbolt, and as such it is the embodiment of personal power. For this reason it exercises a curious influence over the minds of most men, and in its best examples it constitutes an object of affection unmatched by any other inanimate object.

Jeff Cooper
1997 The Art of the Rifle Page 1.

Spoiler: show
SUGGEST CASE BE SUBMITTED ON APPELLANT'S BRIEF. UNABLE TO OBTAIN ANY MONEY FROM CLIENTS TO BE PRESENT & ARGUE BRIEF.

The defense attorney's telegram to the clerk of the Supreme Court, March 29, 1939, in re United States. v. Miller.

You don't need to go to Law School to understand the constitutional implications of that.

“You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”
Spoiler: show
cityslicker wrote:
I don't want to be told that I can't remove the tree by some tree-hugging pole smoker from the eat-a-dick foundation/Olympia/King County.


Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:11 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum



Rules WGO Chat Room Gear Rent Me NRA SAF CCKRBA
Calendar


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
[ Time : 0.554s | 16 Queries | GZIP : Off ]