So get that attorney to give you an opinion. Me? I would have to dig through the summary of every Supreme Court Court decision on gun rights in history to get across all the potential interpretations that have been argued and then choose the ones I think best fit. Alternately I suppose I could just go with a generic 'previous and current interpretations probably amount to what I would probably consider too literal an interpretation of the Amendment', which BTW does not amount to support blanket prohibitions on gun rights either, not even close to that. But again (A) My personal interpretation doesn't matter a dam (neither does yours ) and (B) any interpretation other than the Supreme Courts is pure conjecture and hence not worth the pixels its typed on. This thread was about the what the Constitution per se says on the topic. Not an endless (and pointless) debate about what gun law reforms if any should or should not be permissible. You want that? Start another thread.
I said it way back in the beginning. The problem (I thought) lay in the original question asked in post one i.e. Can anyone cite any language in the constitution that would permit the U.S. government to institute gun control? My point was that the language in the Constitution itself isn't really the issue. It's how the Constitution is interpreted by the courts that's critical. I said as much in post 2.
The lack of language in the Constitution empowering the federal government to restrict the arms of the people is sufficient. Interpretations shouldn't be any issue. The interpretations of SCOTUS haven't changed.
The problem is you can argue a 'lack' of language on a particular topic cuts both way i.e. yes, you can argue that lack means something can't be done. But equally you can argue that since nothing has been said on the topic you have free reign to proceed. Ask any husband whose ever taken their wife's silence on a particular topic as de facto approval to go ahead and do it.
Lacking any language that gives congress power to enact gun control laws, what exactly is up for interpretation?
Congress has only the legislaitve powers granted to it by the consitution. A lack of a power means congress does not have that power.
It's not a 'lack' of power. Its an absence of proscription. Congress isn't being 'given' the power to do anything. In this instance there's simply no language telling Congress it can't act. That's an important distinction.
See my post above. If the Constitution specifically states Congress has no power to legislate in a particular issue? It has no power to do so. If however the Constitution is either silent or perhaps ambiguous on an issue? Queue the Supreme Court.
Except that the Framers all accepted that only the powers in the Constitution were granted, hence the 10th Amendment. Almost useful here.
That's barely one generation after the signing! Barely one generation and the Republic's member States were already finding pressing reasons to do re-writes! If the original 13 states had stayed frozen in perpetuity in the 18th century? Women still wouldn't have the right vote and we could all own slaves! Brilliant. The Constitution was designed to be a living document capable of being amended as the member States and their citizens themselves deemed necessary. If that wasn't the case the founding fathers wouldn't have inserted a mechanism into the Constitution itself for making such amendments in the first place.
Again the courts have repeatedly been called upon to interpret the scope and limitations of Federal power as defined in the 10th Amendment by virtue of constant change. Airline travel, radio and television, nuclear power, modern medicine, global politics? Massive advances and changes that have the power to disrupt society. Changes the founding fathers would never have dreamed the Republic might need to deal with.
It isn't Article V that's the issue. It's ignoring Article V that's the issue. How long did the Federalists wait to ignore the First Amendment?
On what? The 10th Amendment specifically or how it's been interpreted is specific circumstances? Now your starting to ask questions that should be addressed by constitutional lawyer, not a lay person.
Don't know the date off the top of my head but it doesn't matter. Your personally may have a problem with Federal Government 'overreach', lots of people do. But if so by default you must also have a problem with the Supreme Court. It's a partnership, the Government legislates but if there is opposition to a specific piece of legislation (and there almost always is) then in the end the Supreme Court decides. I often find it odd that people who praise the Supreme Court for its stance on things like gun law reform, then turn around and blame the 'government' for any other legislation they dislike even though that same Supreme Court found the laws in question to be constitutionally sound. How does that work? The Supreme Court is not and was never intended to be (as some people on PF seem to think) a giant STOP sign on the road of Federalism. It's a boom gate with 9 guards who selectively decide what gets waived through and what doesn't. People don't like what gets through? Well then both parties share the blame equally.
Say, does the 4th Amendment protect data stored on new technology? We know the Second protects new technology.
Define 'unreasonable' (search and seizure) in that context. As I said you need a constitutional lawyer, not a lay person to answer these kind of questions
true but here is the problem. FDR knew he couldn't get an amendment that would allow his unconstitutional new deal bullshit to pass 10th amendment scrutiny. SO he bullied a bunch of timid justices into reinterpreting the commerce clause to in essence create a de facto amendment. It was dishonest and pathetic but the Democrats had 20 years of appointing every single federal judge and sadly by the time DDE could start appointing GOP judges, they were slaves to precedent and allowed all that unconstitutional crap to stand
at your service. yes the fourth protects against wiretaps and other modern technological warrantless searches. Now there are some exceptions. Example-a case I tried about 20 years ago had this fact pattern. IN a township in SW Ohio, there lived a dope dealer and his wife. They were receiving 100 pound shipments of high grade herb monthly. They often consummated their deals with a cordless phone. Sadly for them one of their nearby neighbors was a hard core HAM radio operator. Now I don't know the technology but one night the HAM radio operator was on his radio when he intercepted BY ACCIDENT a phone call involving the dope dealer. When the dope dealer mentioned quantities and prices and the address where the weed was being sold the HAM radio operator called his son who was the DEA resident agent in charge of the cincinnati office. Busted. the dealer tried to argue that the Ham operator was acting as an agent for local law enforcement. The district judge denied the motion to suppress on two grounds-1) the operator was not acting in a law enforcement capacity and 2) there was no expectation of privacy because it was known that cordless phone calls often could be heard on ham radios.
