Biden’s attempt to regulate pistol braces dealt blow after appeals court casts doubt on constitution

https://www.foxnews.com/us/bidens-a...w-appeals-court-casts-doubt-constitutionality

bidens really good at doing unconstitutional things. This is another scenario I’m glad the judges are getting right. There should be legal punishments for politicians who are found to violate constitutional rights.

 

I'm waiting for the final outcome before I buy an extension for my Kel Tec P50. It's ok though... the price is dropping as I wait (it was EXPENSIVE when it first came out... like the P50 itself)

 

Buy an extension?

 

Call it a whatamawhozit if you want. Adds a pseudo "stock" to tuck it into your shoulder.

 

The only real questions here are...
1- Are pistols with braces in "common use"?
2- Are the laws covering pistol braces and SBRs consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?

 

Where in the constitution does it say that this standard is what gives one a right to bear?

 

The Constitution does not make any statement with regard to what gives someone the right to keep and bear arms.

 

The constitution doesn't grant the US government any authority whatsoever to legislate regarding firearms.

 

Amen!!!!!

 

Simply existing gives one the right to bear arms. If you’re an American citizen you have the right. And as Tench Coxe once said,

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

 

So, we're back to:
The only real questions here are...
1- Are pistols with braces in "common use"?
2- Are the laws covering pistol braces and SBRs consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?

 

"Doesn't grant ...any authority whatsoever" is false.

 

I don't think I agree. The power to regulate how the states trade with each other would be a far stretch to say that it is legislative authority over firearms.

 

Whatever the commodity, the commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate it in interstate commerce.
This includes firearms.

 

I'm not disputing that congress has the legislative authority to keep commerce among the several states regular. My contention is that it has no legislative authority regarding the ownership and use of firearms.

 

You said:
"The constitution doesn't grant the US government any authority whatsoever to legislate regarding firearms"
That's not the same as:
"...it has no legislative authority regarding the ownership and use of firearms"
(and even this is not true)

The point here is you need to be more precise.

 

Good catch. I'll stand by my second amended statement.

 

I still feel like my first point is valid. Congress has the authority to regulate (i.e. keep regular) commerce among the several states (and with foreign nations and the Indian tribes). I think it's a stretch to say that this should be considered legislative authority over firearms.

 

originally the commerce clause was not intended-nor interpreted-to give congress power over private citizens acting within their states. Using the Commerce Clause to say ban a citizen of Ohio from making a machine gun for use in Ohio would never have been seen as proper. Most likely, it would not have been seen as proper for the federal government to prevent said citizen from selling that weapon across state lines as long as the other state allowed it. The purpose of the commerce clause was to prevent states from interfering with free trade-such as the one I constantly use-Ohio slapping a tariff on Pennsylvania coal, traveling to Illinois on the Ohio river.

 

I agree with you but the FDR clown court found otherwise and we are stuck with that unconstitutional precedent

 

I'm talking about the constitution, not the federal government. Everyone knows that the federal government has considered the constitution a dead letter since ratification.

 

Whatever the commodity, the commerce clause gives the federal government the power to regulate it in interstate commerce.
This includes firearms.
Thus, legislative authority.

 

The claim was 'no legislative authority whatsoever'.

 

Yes, they have the authority to regulate how items are traded among the several states.

They do not have the authority to enact any law regarding the ownership and use of firearms by individuals.

 

technically it is hard to imagine what legislative authority was actually intended as it pertains to private citizens acting in their private capacity save perhaps tariffs on the import of foreign goods including small arms and of course obvious powers of say the federal courts or prisons to limit who can possess firearms in federal courts or prisons. Those restrictions are more in the nature of regulations opposed to legislation but you are correct, there is SOME power constitutionally sound