Not that that's anything to be ashamed of. He was commenting on recent court activity, and that can get a little bit complicated.
The first case was a settlement between gun control activists and the town of Nelson, Georgia, which passed a law requiring each home to possess a firearm without intending to enforce it. There was a lawsuit, and the town settled the case by agreeing to add language to the law saying it wouldn't be enforced.
Jeff's original take:
Well, it depends upon how the city implements it. If they decide that they will fine homeowners who dont, thats wrong. The government has no right to demand that you own or exercise a right. Gun ownership is a right though God knows there are plenty of places and politicians in this country that forget that. But the government has no business telling you that you must buy or own something.
There is substantial legislative history from early America of laws that required citizens to own and present for regular inspection a functional militia weapon with a quantity of ammunition. The militia was made up of pretty much every able-bodied male citizen at the time. Nothing has changed on the national level since that time to remove the power of the state governments or their subsidiaries to impose such a requirement on citizens.
While it may no longer be wise policy to make this an enforceable mandate, history is history.
A federal appeals court is ruling against state laws designed to buck federal gun rules. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday agreed with a lower courts decision that struck down the Montana Firearms Freedom Act.The 2009 Montana law attempted to declare that federal firearms regulations dont apply to guns made and kept in that state.
Of course the court will say that. The Supreme Court may even agree. However, that does not settle the question. The Constitution was a document written for the people to understand in its plain language, and no amount of precedent contrary to the plain language of the document can stand.
The federal government of the United States is a government of enumerated powers. While those powers may, arguably, include some authority to regulate firearms that have moved as part of interstate commerce, it is nonetheless forbidden to exercise that authority in any manner that would infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Any honest reading of the Constitution would prohibit the federal government from regulating a firearm that has never moved in interstate commerce.
Most existing federal gun laws stand only, and solely, because the vast majority of guns possessed in the United States have at some point moved in interstate commerce.
Montana's law was political theater only in so far as it was entirely unnecessary to achieve the desired result: the Montana legislature need pass no law to protect the people of their state from federal regulations on firearms that were made and possessed solely within the state of Montana. That protection exists in the structure of the Constitution itself and cannot be removed by mere law.
I wouldn't advise anyone to rely on this in court, because the structure of the Constitution commands no divisions and can neither make nor enforce decrees. The courts are thoroughly corrupt on this issue and while pressing such a case would be a very interesting proposition, it would also be an exceedingly dangerous one.
Nonetheless, the Constitution says what it says.
This entry was published Fri Aug 23 19:17:19 CDT 2013 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2013-08-23 19:17:19.0.