Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: I may have found a novel way to challenge the GCA and NFA.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415

    I may have found a novel way to challenge the GCA and NFA.

    Check out this old supreme court ruling: Wisconsin V. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) The court said in the majority opinion: "Children are 'persons' within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. We have said so over and over again."

    How is that important? If children have the same rights as adults under the Bill Of Rights shouldn't that also apply to the Second Amendment?

    Now consider in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a total ban is unconstitutional.

    Isn't prohibiting children under 18 from buying a gun through an FFL under the GCA a total ban? Isn't prohibiting ANYONE under 21 from owning ANTHING under the NFA a total ban?

    So couldn't the GCA, and NFA then be challenged on the bases of age? Since people under 18 (or 21) are afforded the same rights under the Bill Of Rights as adults according to the Supreme Court in Yoder, than doesn't the GCA, and NFA amount to an unconstitutional total ban under Heller?

  2. #2
    Regular Member fjpro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    300

    Interesting

    The decision is interesting, but.......... - We have bigger fish to fry!!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by fjpro2a View Post
    The decision is interesting, but.......... - We have bigger fish to fry!!
    When you have a fish fry, you throw all the fish in the fryer instead of picking just the few you think some people will like. Fry it up and let the people decide.
    Last edited by Baked on Grease; 09-20-2014 at 10:51 AM.
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  4. #4
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by Small_Arms_Collector View Post
    Check out this old supreme court ruling: Wisconsin V. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) The court said in the majority opinion: "Children are 'persons' within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. We have said so over and over again."

    How is that important? If children have the same rights as adults under the Bill Of Rights shouldn't that also apply to the Second Amendment?

    Now consider in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a total ban is unconstitutional.

    Isn't prohibiting children under 18 from buying a gun through an FFL under the GCA a total ban? Isn't prohibiting ANYONE under 21 from owning ANTHING under the NFA a total ban?

    So couldn't the GCA, and NFA then be challenged on the bases of age? Since people under 18 (or 21) are afforded the same rights under the Bill Of Rights as adults according to the Supreme Court in Yoder, than doesn't the GCA, and NFA amount to an unconstitutional total ban under Heller?
    Interesting argument. Question is who would be willing to challenge it in court and be the test case?
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  5. #5
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    ~ commerce clause....

    Almost all federal gun laws derive their power from the commerce clause, it is in fact the king pin to un-hinging almost all of the big gun control regulations in the United States. This includes the GCA and the NFA, and many others
    - Get the 2nd Amendment immunity from the commerce clause by way of "Shall not be infringed" and you will have liberated 90% of you gun control regulations and laws.... So why no one does it? You'd put the NRA, SAF and many others out of business..... So even "the good guys" wont go there.... sad really, it would be a one stomp victory.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  6. #6
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448
    1. IANAL.

    2. Since only SOME people are banned from gun buying, it is not a TOTAL ban on the citizenry.

    3. No right is without limitation. Surely you aren't looking to win the argument by proposing that a toddler should be allowed to buy a gun.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Eastpointe Michigan
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    1. IANAL.

    2. Since only SOME people are banned from gun buying, it is not a TOTAL ban on the citizenry.

    3. No right is without limitation. Surely you aren't looking to win the argument by proposing that a toddler should be allowed to buy a gun.
    Yes it is, it is a total ban on an entire class of the citizenry, it is no more constitutional than if the Congress passed a law that said blacks can't own a gun by virtue of being black.

    Age is also a protected class I believe.

    I'm not saying anything about toddlers buying a gun the Supreme Court is, that is if they really meant what they said in Yoder.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    1. IANAL.

    2. Since only SOME people are banned from gun buying, it is not a TOTAL ban on the citizenry.

    3. No right is without limitation. Surely you aren't looking to win the argument by proposing that a toddler should be allowed to buy a gun.
    #3 is wrong .. tell me how a right is limited? It becomes a privilege then. The old age restriction argument...seems "reasonable"...like all other unconstitutional laws that always "seem reasonable". Actually, a 16 yr old has as much right to defend himself as much as a 18 yr old does ... or doesn't he? A toddler has a parent, yes? I was a ffl for 20+ yrs and never had a guy come in to buy a gun for his toddler...I have seen people buy guns for 8 - 14 yr old kids though ~ I sold them the guns. When SHTF you may even want your toddler to carry. I would have sold to parents of a toddler for the toddler's use; why not..maybe that's just me?

    #2 some people are prevented from owning, like prisoners. Other freemen have their right oppressed. Remember, even the courts have said its an individual right.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-21-2014 at 02:31 AM.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    ...2. Since only SOME people are banned from gun buying, it is not a TOTAL ban on the citizenry...
    Cops are citizens, therefore as long as they have guns, ...
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  10. #10
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    the right of the people

    it says
    ...the right of the people...
    not some people
    or most people
    or certain people
    or the ruling people

    - it say the people

    - SCOTUS already ruled it an individual right.... therefore "the people" is you, me, and everyone who legally resides here.
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  11. #11
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,878
    shouldn't there have been a tad of context before you pull a singular statement out of the middle of a judgement? interestingly, the case was about amish school children who WI stated they must attend school. period! We do not care what the parent's wishes are ~ religious or not!

    additionally your out of context statement failed to mention the final caveat in that section of the justice's statement after talking about children are considered person(s): quote They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. unquote same cite as the OP's

    with that statement, IMHO is going to be your roadblock to success in pursuing any 2A relief within or through the judicial system.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    1. IANAL.

    2. Since only SOME people are banned from gun buying, it is not a TOTAL ban on the citizenry.

    3. No right is without limitation. Surely you aren't looking to win the argument by proposing that a toddler should be allowed to buy a gun.
    Well no but I think it's about personal (in this case parental) responsibility. The Constitution is set up so everything is legal unless prohibited. Now Constitutionally yes a toddler can. Practically no store or any parent in their right might would hear of such an absurdity. I don't believe in age limits to bear arms because everyone is different. Back in the day kids quite young (though not that young) went hunting with their fathers and caught the days supper and brought it back. They were taught when they were ready how to use a gun safely.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    shouldn't there have been a tad of context before you pull a singular statement out of the middle of a judgement? interestingly, the case was about amish school children who WI stated they must attend school. period! We do not care what the parent's wishes are ~ religious or not!

    additionally your out of context statement failed to mention the final caveat in that section of the justice's statement after talking about children are considered person(s): quote They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. unquote same cite as the OP's

    with that statement, IMHO is going to be your roadblock to success in pursuing any 2A relief within or through the judicial system.

    ipse
    Thanks, good point.

    OTOH...it is the "obligation to the state" that is the crux of the matter. The "state" has burdened the citizenry with many obligations that they, under the constitution, have no authrotiy to burden us with.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Quote Originally Posted by Small_Arms_Collector View Post
    Check out this old supreme court ruling: Wisconsin V. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) The court said in the majority opinion: "Children are 'persons' within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. We have said so over and over again."

    How is that important? If children have the same rights as adults under the Bill Of Rights shouldn't that also apply to the Second Amendment?

    Now consider in Heller the Supreme Court ruled that a total ban is unconstitutional.

    Isn't prohibiting children under 18 from buying a gun through an FFL under the GCA a total ban? Isn't prohibiting ANYONE under 21 from owning ANTHING under the NFA a total ban?

    So couldn't the GCA, and NFA then be challenged on the bases of age? Since people under 18 (or 21) are afforded the same rights under the Bill Of Rights as adults according to the Supreme Court in Yoder, than doesn't the GCA, and NFA amount to an unconstitutional total ban under Heller?
    A simple approach would be to challenge the ban on those under 21 from buying handguns thru federal background checks. Forcing adults aged 18-20 to buy guns in private sales without background checks seems to me to fail even the rational basis test.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    A simple approach would be to challenge the ban on those under 21 from buying handguns thru federal background checks. Forcing adults aged 18-20 to buy guns in private sales without background checks seems to me to fail even the rational basis test.
    There was already a case: National Rifle Association of America Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 11-10959, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).

    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...59-CV0.wpd.pdf

    "... the government may 'discriminate on the basis of age without offending' the constitutional guarantee of equal protection 'if the age classification in question is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.' "

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •