Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Wall Street Journal: "Alan Gura - How a Young Lawyer Saved the Second Amendment"

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://online.wsj.com/search?KEYWORDS=Gura&mod=DNH_S

    COMMENTARY: THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
    Alan Gura
    How a Young Lawyer Saved the Second Amendment

    By JAMES TARANTO
    July 19, 2008;PageA7

    Alexandria, Va.

    For decades the Second Amendment might as well have been called the Second-Class Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court spent the late 20th century expansively interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, not to mention unenumerated rights ranging from travel to sexual privacy. But not until last month did the court hold that the Second Amendment means what it says: that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    What took so long? I put the question to Alan Gura, the 37-year-old wunderkind lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in District of Columbia v. Heller.

    A native of Israel, he grew up in Los Angeles and never owned a firearm until after that city's riots in 1992. That summer, before he enrolled at the Georgetown University Law Center, "I bought a gun in Los Angeles. I did not have it with me in law school, of course -- that was illegal."

    After law school, he worked for California's attorney general and the Senate Judiciary Committee before settling into private practice in this gun-friendly Washington suburb. As we talked last week, we exercised our rights under the 21st Amendment, sipping cocktails at a speakeasy-style bar across the street from his office.

    The meaning of the Second Amendment had long been disputed because of its prefatory clause, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . ." Opponents of gun rights argued that the Founders meant to establish only a "collective right" -- authorization for states to raise militias. The Supreme Court had not addressed the question since 1939, when it held, in U.S. v. Miller, that sawed-off shotguns were not appropriate for use in a militia and therefore could be banned.

    The Miller decision "was agreed by everybody to be somewhat murky and inconclusive," Mr. Gura says. "We read the case, like a lot of people, to mean that it's an individual right." But firearm foes claimed that the court had endorsed the collective-rights theory.

    By the beginning of this century, notes Mr. Gura, that theory had fallen into disfavor among legal academics. "Many scholars, including very well-known left-of-center or liberal scholars, had come to concede that the Second Amendment, whatever its scope, guarantees some sort of an individual right to own and carry firearms, not connected to military service."

    But the judiciary lagged behind the academy, owing to a dearth of Second Amendment litigation. Traditional civil-liberties groups like the ACLU largely backed the collective-rights theory, and gun-rights groups like the National Rifle Association focused their efforts on lobbying, in the belief that litigation was too risky.

    "Virtually all the decisions that addressed the Second Amendment were styled United States v. Somebody," says Mr. Gura. "'Somebody' was a crack dealer, a bank robber -- some lowlife who had made a spurious Second Amendment claim as part of a package of desperate appeals." Faced with these sorts of cases, almost every federal appeals court had desultorily endorsed the collective rights view.

    That changed in 2001 with the case of Emerson v. U.S. A federal grand jury had indicted a Texas man for possessing a pistol while under a restraining order not to threaten his estranged wife. The trial judge dismissed the charges on Second Amendment grounds. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the indictment, but held that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right.

    "For the first time ever," says Mr. Gura, "we had a clear, concise, intelligent examination of the Second Amendment with a true analysis of the document, and the conclusion was that it secured an individual right." What's more, "with Emerson we had, for the first time, a circuit split" -- a disagreement among appellate courts over how to interpret the amendment.

    The government was not about to appeal Emerson, for it had prevailed in reinstating the indictment. But the circuit split made it likely that the high court would take up the Second Amendment question sooner or later. The danger, Mr. Gura says, was that the argument would be made by "some pro se lunatic criminal" or a defense lawyer focused on exonerating his client rather than vindicating the Constitution.

    The case that became D.C. v. Heller was the brainchild of three lawyers at a pair of libertarian organizations, the Cato Institute and the Institute for Justice. All were busy with other matters, so they hired Mr. Gura. "Alan was willing to work for subsistence wages," Cato's Robert Levy tells me, "in return for which he got a commitment from me that if the case went anywhere, it would be his baby. It turned out that that commitment was very important."

    Mr. Gura says he set out "to do a careful, strategic litigation on the issue." One court that had not yet taken a position on the Second Amendment's meaning was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As it happened, the nation's capital had the most restrictive gun law in the country: a total ban on handguns, and a requirement that shotguns and rifles be kept disassembled or locked within the home.

    To challenge the law, Mr. Gura says, "it was very important for us to pick decent, law-abiding people . . . . We consciously wanted to have plaintiffs from across the demographic spectrum in Washington, D.C. We wanted all manner of diversity, because it's important -- people want to see that you are arguing for a right that is held by ordinary people."

    Mr. Gura tells me his clients' stories: "Shelly Parker . . . is an African-American lady who moved to a part of Capitol Hill that was improving, but apparently not fast enough. [She] would call the police, get the neighbors involved, to try to get the drug dealers off the street. The drug dealers figured out fairly quickly what the source of their problem was and started harassing her, subjecting her to all kinds of threats, vandalism and so on. . . .

    "Dick Heller is a special police officer of the District of Columbia . . . . When we started this suit, he was guarding -- with a gun -- the Federal Judicial Center on Capitol Hill . . . . But Mr. Heller was not allowed to have a gun in his own home for self-defense. . . .

    "Tom Palmer is a Cato scholar, a gay man who had previously, in California, fended off a hate crime using a firearm that he happened to have on him. He is alive today, or at least avoided serious injury, because he was able to have access to a gun when he needed it. . . .

    "Gillian St. Lawrence is a mortgage broker in Georgetown. . . . [She had] a lawfully registered shotgun, but . . . had to always keep that shotgun unloaded and disassembled, or bound by trigger lock. There was no exception for home self-defense. . . . Of course, she asserted the right to have a functional firearm. If you're allowed to have guns, you're allowed to have guns that actually work as such. We're gratified that both the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court agreed with us on that proposition." They did -- but it was close. The circuit-court panel that ruled in his clients' favor split 2-1.

    When the case reached the Supreme Court, Mr. Levy says he came under pressure to replace the young Mr. Gura, who had never argued a case before the high court, with a veteran litigator like Ted Olson, Ken Starr or Miguel Estrada. No dice, Mr. Levy replied. He had a commitment, and besides, Mr. Gura "had been immersed in this issue for 5½ years . . . so he knew the material cold."

    The results speak for themselves. All nine justices agreed that the Second Amendment established an individual right. But four dissenters offered an interpretation of that right so cramped as to render it a nullity.

    "My biggest surprise is that it was 5-4," Mr. Gura says. "I thought the case was much stronger than 5-4. . . . However, I'll take the five and be very happy with that."

    The court's close division meant that Mr. Gura needed the vote of Anthony Kennedy. Most court-watchers consider him the least predictable justice, but not Mr. Gura: "I received a lot of grief from people about Justice Kennedy going into the argument. We were told that we were not responsible, gambling on the views of this one justice who might be completely inscrutable and unpredictable. . . .

    "Justice Kennedy did not trouble me all that much. The fact is that if you look at Justice Kennedy's voting pattern, the cases where he tends to disappoint the so-called conservative bloc -- in almost all those cases, Justice Kennedy sides with a claim of an individual right being held by a person against the government, whether that is in the abortion context, or whether that's in the context of intimate sexual relations, whether it's the habeas case in Guantanamo Bay."

    One key unresolved question in D.C. v. Heller is whether it limits the states as well as the federal government. The Bill of Rights originally restrained only Congress, but under the "incorporation" doctrine, the Supreme Court has held that the 14th Amendment protects most constitutional rights against state encroachment. Because the capital is a federal district, its local government is a creation of the U.S. Congress. Heller gave no reason to think incorporation doesn't apply, but further litigation will be necessary to settle the question.

    Nor does Heller settle which restrictions are constitutional and which are not. Justice Scalia wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt" on laws against possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill or in "sensitive places" like schools or government buildings, or laws regulating commerce in firearms. That's fine with Mr. Gura, but many laws currently on the books fall somewhere between these uncontroversial provisions and D.C.'s onerous restrictions.

    These questions will be sorted out in litigation to come. Mr. Gura's first stop: Chicago, which has a handgun ban identical to Washington's and burdensome registration requirements for long guns.

    The Chicago lawsuit was "ready to go" when the Supreme Court decided Heller on June 26. "I looked at the opinion," Mr. Gura says, "and I called my counsel in Chicago and said, 'Yeah, looks good.'" The next day another lawsuit was filed, challenging the ban on handguns in San Francisco's public housing projects. Among the plaintiffs: the National Rifle Association. Thanks to Mr. Gura's efforts, the NRA is no longer gun-shy about going to court.

    Mr. Taranto, a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, writes the Best of the Web Today column for OpinionJournal.com.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    This man is a true patriot, I am greatful someone finally had the courage to stand up to the DC city council on their illegal gun ban.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lake Worth, Florida, USA
    Posts
    24

    Post imported post

    massltca wrote:
    This man is a true patriot, I am greatful someone finally had the courage to stand up to the DC city council on their illegal gun ban.
    +1

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    A well regulated miltia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Well, there are still some 20,000 gun laws in this country. And ALL those Justices support them, even the ones in the majority. So much for "NOT BE INFRINGED".

  5. #5
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Panos1296 wrote:
    Well, there are still some 20,000 gun laws in this country. And ALL those Justices support them, even the ones in the majority. So much for "NOT BE INFRINGED".
    I think not. If you read the decision, you'll find that it pretty much sounds like they are waiting for a case to come from the states so they can bitch slap them down ,too. They cited several cases from different stateswhere SCOTUS or lower courts havesided with us. I think they are a lot more gunfriendly than you think. I'll be anticipating their next call.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    But the majority also said this was not a decision that puts reasonable restrictions and regulations in danger. Govts still have the authority to use those restrictions to control guns, according to them.

    In all, obviously I agreed with the decision but I also acknowledged the language used by the majority. They seem to be in support of most gun control measures. They are onlyagainst outright bans.

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Panos1296 wrote:
    They seem to be in support of most gun control measures. They are onlyagainst outright bans.
    I don't think that's how it reads. I think they are talking about the control of guns away from the hands of felons and the mentally ill. I have no Problem with these bans. Quite possibly they may go further than that, but I don't think they are willing to go much further.

    They mentioned a couple of cases about openly carrying of firearms that were decided favorably to us. This is why I feel these 5 are on our side.

    I think it's obvious that we need to stack the court with more justices that translate the Constitution as a literal word for word document. That's the way it was suppose to be done.

    Chief Justice Roberts wants very narrow interpretations of the cases that they hear. He doesn't want to make law from the bench. Because Heller said he had no problem with registration, they didn't rule it out. Sounded to me as if he had objected to registration, theymight possibly have done away with that portion, too.

    Seems to me that they gave Heller what he asked for and nothing more. Had he asked for more, he may have gotten it.

    Baby steps, my friend, baby steps. That's how the anti's got all this stuff enacted, and that'show we need to dismantle it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    If they read it word for word, then there would be NO gun control laws. As in the phrase, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. When govt decides who can or cannot own firearms, then the right has now been infringed.

    Should felons not have the right to protect their families? If not,those felons own the guns already because the laws dont work. As long as there is a demand, there WILL be a supply.

    The 2nd amendment is there to protect against govt tyranny. When govt is determining who can own the arms, then we have already lost the battle. That is a conflict of interest, I'd say.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Panos1296 wrote:
    But the majority also said this was not a decision that puts reasonable restrictions and regulations in danger.
    Right - all depends what you mean by "reasonable." All constituional rights are subject to "reasonable regulation."Footnote 27, as we have discussed, invites incorporation against state power. But Footnote 23 in Heller affirms that regulations implicating Second Amendment rights (to own, keep, and carry common guns) will get more than mere "rational basis for the law" scrutiny: "JUSTICE BREYER correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws,
    would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis
    scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws
    under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on
    irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553
    U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis”
    is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the
    constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to
    evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific,
    enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against
    double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear
    arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144, 152,
    n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption
    of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by
    rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within
    a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten
    amendments. . .”). If all that was required to overcome the right to
    keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would
    be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."

    Bottom line, Heller puts us in a good position to challenge more than just gun bans - and if the challenege also has some other basis in law, like a violation of equal protection (restrictions on legal resident alien's gun rights), the privileges and immunities clause (re state citizenship), other statutes like federal privacy act ban on collecting SSNs) then winning becomes even much more likley.

  10. #10
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Here is a good read. It has been a while since I have read it so perhaps I also need to revisit its prose.

    Enjoy.

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html


    This is also an interesting read. I have the original printing in a gun magazine.

    http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Oley, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    221

    Post imported post

    Mike you are 100% correct!!!

    I dislike how everyone is treating this as a blanket win for the 2A, when in fact it is only the beginning for future restoration of rights abridged. There are many laws that need to be repealled and much work to be done on behalf of all gun laws.

    I hope that this does not lose steam accross the country as more and more lawsuits are put before the courts.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222

    Post imported post

    Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster here.

    There's something regarding Miller which has been bothering me for years and was onlyreinforced by Heller.

    Since I'm not able to start a new thread yet I thought I'd toss this out here.

    First was the rulling in Miller which I quote from the article-

    "The Supreme Court had not addressed the question since 1939, when it held, in U.S. v. Miller, that sawed-off shotguns were not appropriate for use in a militia and therefore could be banned."

    To me, this always sounded like the court was saying that the militia, made up of common citizens, should always have access to weapons capable of being used in a military setting. In other words, ban deer rifles and double barreled shotguns used for shooting clays if you want but leave AR-15s and AK-47s alone.The Second Amendment doesn't protect sawed off shotguns. It's about the guns we'd have to use to fight as an ad hoc army if necessary.

    Then the Assault Weapon Ban comes along and the NRA and other gun lobby groups fail to fight it using the arguement that Miller said that Assault Weapons are EXACTILY the sort of weapons protected by the Second Admendment. We heard the argument from the antis "It has no SPORTING PURPOSE." Show me in the Second Amendment it uses the word "sporting". Because as far as I can see the whole assault weapon ban, no flash supressors, no bayonet lugs, thumbhole stock, etc, etc was unconstitutionalbased on Miller.


    Now Heller comes out. It states that we have an individual right to firearms for self defense. Cool.

    Nothing I read in the Heller decision nullifies the Miller decision as far as I can tell. Mr Dick Heller should be able to keep (and bear) a AK-47 in his DC home and be perfectly within his rights.

    As I see things, Miller asserted that weapons useful to a militia are protected and Heller says that we don't necessarily have to be a member of anorganized, drillingMilitia unitto own said weapons and we also have the right to keep said weapons for self defense if necessary.

    Sorry if it seems that I'm repeating myself. I'm only trying to be clear in my thoughts here on the printed page.

    So someone help me out here. Am I missing something?

    Thanks.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    yale wrote:
    Hi. Long time lurker, first time poster here.

    There's something regarding Miller which has been bothering me for years and was onlyreinforced by Heller.

    Since I'm not able to start a new thread yet I thought I'd toss this out here.

    First was the rulling in Miller which I quote from the article-

    "The Supreme Court had not addressed the question since 1939, when it held, in U.S. v. Miller, that sawed-off shotguns were not appropriate for use in a militia and therefore could be banned."

    To me, this always sounded like the court was saying that the militia, made up of common citizens, should always have access to weapons capable of being used in a military setting. In other words, ban deer rifles and double barreled shotguns used for shooting clays if you want but leave AR-15s and AK-47s alone.The Second Amendment doesn't protect sawed off shotguns. It's about the guns we'd have to use to fight as an ad hoc army if necessary.

    Then the Assault Weapon Ban comes along and the NRA and other gun lobby groups fail to fight it using the arguement that Miller said that Assault Weapons are EXACTILY the sort of weapons protected by the Second Admendment. We heard the argument from the antis "It has no SPORTING PURPOSE." Show me in the Second Amendment it uses the word "sporting". Because as far as I can see the whole assault weapon ban, no flash supressors, no bayonet lugs, thumbhole stock, etc, etc was unconstitutionalbased on Miller.


    Now Heller comes out. It states that we have an individual right to firearms for self defense. Cool.

    Nothing I read in the Heller decision nullifies the Miller decision as far as I can tell. Mr Dick Heller should be able to keep (and bear) a AK-47 in his DC home and be perfectly within his rights.

    As I see things, Miller asserted that weapons useful to a militia are protected and Heller says that we don't necessarily have to be a member of anorganized, drillingMilitia unitto own said weapons and we also have the right to keep said weapons for self defense if necessary.

    Sorry if it seems that I'm repeating myself. I'm only trying to be clear in my thoughts here on the printed page.

    So someone help me out here. Am I missing something?

    Thanks.
    read opinion again - search for term "common" Heller re-interpretted Miller to make sense and just apply to common guns

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I know what you're saying yale. I've had the same problem understanding the US v. Miller decision existing alongside the NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968. As well I have had trouble understanding the belief held by some that the 2nd amendment only limits the federal government, not state or local governments, yet the ATF (a federal agency) exists to regulate aspects of firearm ownership, purchase, and exchange. Also you have to put that argument against the numerous federal laws and prohibitions against firearms.

    I tend to dismiss US v. Miller since Miller didn't even show up for the case. That's what has irked me about that case. People tote it like it was some major victory or defeat. Really? It's a big victory/defeat? The opposing side didn't even show up. It is my belief that if Miller had been in court that day he could have easily argued that shotguns were used in the trenches of WWI and thus fit into militia use.

    When did shall not be infringed mean infringe all you want?

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    I have had trouble understanding the belief held by some that the 2nd amendment only limits the federal government, not state or local governments, yet the ATF (a federal agency) exists to regulate aspects of firearm ownership, purchase, and exchange. Also you have to put that argument against the numerous federal laws and prohibitions against firearms.
    It's not a belief - it's the law of the land - the Second Amendment does not work to frustrate state power. Yet.

    And ATF power to regulate guns has nothing to do with the Second Amendment - it, to the extent it exists,flows from Congress's express powers. ATF regulations and actions may now be attacked as violating the Second Amendment and a variety of other grounds, but those attacks are not likley to be successful except at the margins.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    Stop lawyerizing me!:P I'm just speaking of the double speak of the law. It seems a bit hypocritical for the court to rule that firearms can be regulated if they do not serve a purpose in the militia yet there is allowed to be a ban on "assault weapons". In the same respect it is also weird that the 2nd amendment is a limit on federal power but not state power yet the federal government can ignore that limit. The other amendments don't have that kind of "only applies to federal government" limit.

    It's interesting how the legal system can become so muddled. I think if the founders of our country were here to see us they would be impressed with how far we've come and saddened by how far we've fallen.

  17. #17
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    it is also weird that the 2nd amendment is a limit on federal power but not state power yet the federal government can ignore that limit.
    Not weird - it's federalism.

    Under Heller the federal government must respect Second Amendment rights. Many federal gun laws will be attacked on Second Amendmend grounds, and some will succeed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    That's not the weird part. The weird part is that all the other amendments in the bill of rights are limits on the federal government and state governments, namely the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh but the second amendment is the only one that is seen as a limit to the federal government and not the states (for now at least).

    You have the right to speak, assemble, have a fair trial, to be safe and secure in your home and your papers, and to keep from incriminating yourself. All those rights exist and are equal in the US no matter what state you're in. However the right to keep and bear arms is not the same. In the state of Georgia you have to ask for permission via a license to bear your arms, in the state of Kentucky you don't need a license to do the same thing (in an open manner), and in the state of Vermont they don't have a licensing system for open or concealed carry. No other "right" is treated the same way.

  19. #19
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    That's not the weird part. The weird part is that all the other amendments in the bill of rights are limits on the federal government and state governments, namely the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh but the second amendment is the only one that is seen as a limit to the federal government and not the states (for now at least).
    The Bill of rights were never held to be applicable to the states until 1925 when selective incorporation started with Gitlow v. New York. To some, like Scalia and Thiomas, incorporation is still controversal.si

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    It seems to me that they could also be attacted on Tenth Ammendment grounds. The Constitution gives the federal government certain specified powers, but the 10th ammendment limits the Federal Government to only those powers specificly enumerated in the constitution and reserves all other powers to the states and the people. I have found no clause in the constitution that specificly grants to the federal government the power to restrict or regulate the manufacture, production, sale, or possation of any product of commodity.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    bobestes wrote:
    I have found no clause in the constitution that specificly grants to the federal government the power to restrict or regulate the manufacture, production, sale, or possation of any product of commodity.
    uh, commerce clause?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    I always thought that one of the requirements for statehood is that the citizens of a candidate state must have a republican form of government with protection of individual rights.

    Seems to me that covers incorporation right there, but of course since the Constitution doesn't lay out what exactly is the definition of a right, there will always be arguing.

    Gura has stated, and even Mike apparently believes, that even enumerated rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions and regulations. Says that where in the constitution, or Declaration of Ind. for that matter?

    Rights are rights, regulations are concoctions of humans to control otherhumans. Making it illegal to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a restriction on free speech rights; since the shouter never had the right to start a panic in the first place, he had no right to shout "fire".

    Now, I am a realist, and I understand what Mr. Gura is saying, but you just know that the various state governments will all come up with different versions of "reasonable". I guess it's better to have 50 versions, some good and some bad, than one big bad one.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Gura has stated, and even Mike apparently believes, that even enumerated rights are subject to "reasonable" restrictions and regulations. Says that where in the constitution, or Declaration of Ind. for that matter?
    Nowhere, obviously, but SCOTUS decided long, long ago that reasonable restrictions must be allowed, because the alternative is crazy; the amendments in the Bill of Rights are too black and white, and don't allow room for the judgement which is needed for justice. I know not everyone here agrees with that, but it's etched deeply into the bedrock of our legal system at this point.

    However, I hope a future court case brings up the point that the language of the second amendment is STRONGER than that of the first, which implies that an even higher standard of scrutiny should apply to second amendment cases. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech". So in the case of speech, Congress can't make a law that limits it. In the case of the second amendment, it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say who can't infringe it, or why, it says it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. By Congress, or judges, or anyone.

    The difference is subtle, but such subtleties are the meat and potatoes of judicial review, and I think it's a difference that should be taken into account, and should be taken to imply that second amendment cases deserve the strictest of judicial scrutiny.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    The commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. The 10th ammendment would keep it from trying to regulate intrastate commerce which would include the manufacture/production, sale, possession, or intrastate shipment of any product or commonity. If I remember my history correctly, under the Articles of Confederation interstate commerce was being hindered by protectionist levies and regulations imposed by the individual states. Therfore, the Constitution gives the Federal Government the sole power to regulate interstate commerce. Unfortunatly, power hungry legislators and jurists have distorted that clause to include the regulation of almost every aspect of every product or commodity that is shipped accross a state line.

  25. #25
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    bobestes wrote:
    Unfortunatly, power hungry legislators and jurists have distorted that clause to include the regulation of almost every aspect of every product or commodity that is shipped accross a state line.
    I totally agree. The feds have used the commerce clause and the general welfare clause to totallysubvert the 10th, and to move this country toward socialism.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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