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

Small_Arms_Collector · Sep 20, 2014

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?

fjpro2a · Sep 20, 2014

Interesting

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

Baked on Grease · Sep 20, 2014

fjpro2a said:
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.

rightwinglibertarian · Sep 20, 2014

Small_Arms_Collector said:
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?

Batousaii · Sep 20, 2014

~ 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.

paramedic70002 · Sep 21, 2014

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.

Small_Arms_Collector · Sep 21, 2014

paramedic70002 said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Sep 21, 2014

paramedic70002 said:
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.

MAC702 · Sep 22, 2014

paramedic70002 said:
...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, ...

Batousaii · Sep 22, 2014

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.

solus · Sep 22, 2014

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

rightwinglibertarian · Sep 22, 2014

paramedic70002 said:
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.

OC for ME · Sep 23, 2014

solus said:
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.

Mike · Sep 24, 2014

Small_Arms_Collector said:
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.

AmbushBug · Sep 29, 2014

Mike said:
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\pub\11/11-10959-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.' "

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

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member

fjpro2a

Regular Member

Baked on Grease

Regular Member

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

Batousaii

Regular Member

paramedic70002

Regular Member

Small_Arms_Collector

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

Batousaii

Regular Member

solus

Regular Member

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

Mike

Site Co-Founder

AmbushBug

Regular Member