Congress can legislate on ANY legitimate issue. Even if not enumerated in the Constitution.

Congress can legislate on ANY legitimate issue. Even if not enumerated in the Constitution.

Legislating on any issue that is not enumerated in the constitution is not legitimate. The 10th amendment is as clear as a bell. Legislating on a non-enumerated issue is corruption.

 

You didn't "say" anything. You asked a question ("has Marshall's opinion ever been citied to support a gun control law."). To which I responded with ANOTHER question ("Has ANY court opinion EVER been cited in ANY legislation that Congress passes?"). And now you use your usual escape route that you use every time you are caught with your pants under your knees: you change the subject.

 

Yep, reasonable limits. Every Right has reasonable limits. But Golem wants to go beyond those limits. Don't even pretend otherwise. You also wish to go beyond those limits. As evidenced by the fact that you want the 2nd Amendment repealed.

 

Well, I'm sure you are aware that the civilian ban applies to fully automatic weapons manufactured after 1986, and the M4 was after that date. And I doubt I have to tell you that if you're interested in owning fully automatic rifle manufactured before May 19, 1986, you'll have to comply with the NFA. Not easy, but doable if you are affluent enough and determined.

Heller tells us we can own weapons that are reasonable for self defense. Is an M4 necessary? Cannot one defend oneself with an Ar 15? How about the LESOCOM? What abut the other types of fully autos you can legally own (as long as you meet the NFA requirements)?

The 1986 ban was upheld in Rehaif v the United states (2019) though i don't think it addressed the constitutionality issue.

The FOPA 1986 will probably be challenged given the recent Bruen decision (though it was about concealed carry).

Why are you so concerned about the M4? There are civilian versions similar to it, though not fully automatic.

Given the huge increase of mass shootings, the bump stock issue recent, I doubt SCOTUS is in any mood to strike FOPA, especially given how low the court's esteem is held by the current public. I should think striking FOPA would cause quite an uproar, and if they did it, it would be a boon to democrats in 2024.

In short, I don't know. Do you?

 

Congress has no legislative authority in article one, section eight to regulate guns, so any such legislation could never be considered to be "within the scope of the constitution".

 

Miller held that militia useful weapons are protected by the second amendment.

 

I think Golem's suggestions are within constraints set by Heller, though I think the Heller ruling was wrong.

The main reason I would like to see 2A repealed is to give state legislatures the freedom to regulate as they see fit for their respective states. it would also give Congress more flexibility, as well, and we wouldn't have the NRA, whose main constituency are gun manufacturers, blocking their every effort, even with the reg is supported by a majority of their own members.

 

Hmmm, yes, Miller suggested that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment are those that have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." So, sawed off shotguns weren't protected.

What was your point? I suspect it's, given Heller, if a 'militia' (which is the nat guard now) uses M4s, civilians ought to be able to use them, and since Bruen, regulators can no longer ban guns on the basis of 'public safety' (which is insane).

Thing is, until someone challenges FOPA and SCOTUS decides on the plaintiff's side, M4s will require complying with the NFA (which has really driven up the street price of those pre-1986 fully auto rifles), so we are still at square one.

In my view, both Heller and Bruen are wrong. But, they are the SCOTUS rulings, and we must abide by their decisions.

 

Golem wants to ban all guns. So no, they're not.

Yes, we know why you want the 2nd Amendment repealed. Because you want "assault weapons" banned. Then later on down the line when that doesn't solve the problem you'll want more guns banned. Rinse repeat until the most anyone can have of a gun is a single shot rifle...AT BEST. All the while ignoring the core problems. Meaning NOTHING of substance will have been accomplished. Except the deprivation of Peoples Rights. And then, what you ignore, other Rights will slowly be eroded away. Just like what is happening in the UK with Free Speech.

 

@Golem has told me he's against the repeal, so, your claim doesn't appear to have merit, unless, of course, you can show me a quote.

I stated the reason I want 2A repealed, 'to give regulators more freedom to regulate as they see fit'.

If all you had was 2 single shot rifles, let us be clear, then your second amendment rights have been fulfilled,

2A says 'shall not be infringed'.

What shall not be infringed?

The right to keep and bear arms.

It goes ONLY to the right.

What is the right? (per heller, it's now the 'individual').

To keep and bear arms.

At the very minimum, per Heller, that's two guns for reasonable self defense and hunting.

Anything beyond that, even per Heller, is subject to regulation.

But since we get crap from the NRA even in the face of Heller, I think we should just repeal 2A altogether and put an end to those folks who are mainly there to serve the interests of gun manufacturers

and yes, some liberal states just might reduce it to that, and some cities will ban handguns, altogether (which they did A LOT in the old west).
I doubt anyone has the temerity to ban all guns, that defies American tradition and the public won't tolerate it.

Years ago, these arguments weren't even being argued. Only since the NRA blocking every attempt at reasonable and fair regulation, has this subject come to my attention. It is BECAUSE of the NRA (plus increase in mass shootings) I believe it's necessary to repeal 2A.

And you can send them a kiss for that one. I hope they are making you happy because they have emboldened the left into action.

 

....vested by this Constitution.

 

Is your opinion based on an extensive legal education or is it based on the fact that your political agenda sees gun owners as an enemy and gun control as a useful tool to fight that enemy. I may be wrong, but I have NEVER met an anti gunner whose position came from -or primarily from-constitutional scholarship. Rather, the anti gun position comes from their political agenda and then they work backwards to interpret the second amendment and related cases to fit their agenda.

 

nothing you support is reasonable given nothing you advocate has any hope of doing anything OTHER than harassing honest gun owners

 

These constant attempts to override actual written law and our national charter (The Constitution) sound very fascistic to me. I'm sorry to read someone making that argument.

 

So you believe Chief Justice Marshall was a fascist.

Well... it makes no difference. Because after 200+ years of his opinion being the basis for a considerable portion of our laws, it would prove way more difficult to overturn even by this activist Supreme Court than it was for them to legislate for private gun ownership and to force women to carry a fetus against their will.

 

I think someone who wants to ignore actual written law and constitution in order to violate the bill of rights is probably a fascist. That's rule by men, not law.

 

Just so you are aware, it's too evident when people throw around words like "fascist" because they sound "nasty"... but they don't actually know what they mean.

You can disagree with Justice Marshall's opinion. But the fact is that his interpretation gives the representatives of the people (Congress) MORE power. This is the exact opposite of fascism that strives to REMOVE power from the direct representatives of the people.

Not my intention for this to look like an attack. As I said, I mention it just so you are aware.

 

Powers that were never actually given to congress by the states.

 

Lol! The irony....

I'm sorry but that's gotta be the quote of the year!