Can anyone cite any language in the constitution that would permit the U.S. government to institute gun control?
The problem isn't language. The problem is legal interpretation. Specifically, the historical legal interpretation US courts have imposed on the 2nd Amendment. 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' Had history taken a different path different legal interpretations of the 2nd Amendment above would have lead to different regulatory outcomes. A well regulated militia? States have an obligation to maintain 'national' guard units' or individual citizens of each State have a right to bear arms in the event their State faces a military emergency? Bear arms? Firearms can be carried (but in a more limited range of circumstances.) Are you only 'bearing arms' when physically carrying them or also when you own them? Shall not be infringed? States have the right to impose some restrictions as long as those restrictions don't prevent the average citizen from carrying. Licensing and registration? Basic safety training? Legal obligations when a firearm is not being carried? All based on possible potential legal interpretations. But none of those interpretations ever happened. Narrower interpretations of the right to bear arms would have resulted more restraints that simply aren't legal today due to established case law. Maybe there's a parallel world out there with slightly different different Judges and case law?
The 2nd amendment doesn't give congress any legislative powers. So the 2nd amendment is irellevant to this thread.
Doesn't matter. Even if the Constitution did grant some form of 'right' to legislate? Supreme Court say NO! The 2nd Amendment (as interpreted) has morphed is a legal wet blanket that has stifled virtually all attempts a firearm regulation to date.
And as noted the crickets are chirping precisely because the Constitution is silent on the matter. Kind of hard to generate a lot of conversation when the answer seems to a simple 'no'!
It's far too late for any type of gun control anyway. The anti-gunners missed out on that one by about a hundred or so years. There are more guns in the United States than people. They will never be banned, they will never be confiscated. Gun owners in the United States outnumber our entire combined military and law enforcement by 200 to 1, as it should be. There is no way they could even come remotely close to enforcing it.
The Second Amendment as written and as understood by the Framers is doing exactly what they intended. You can see Heller for the Constitutional restrictions on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Couple places. - Interstate commerce - Training, arming and disciplining the militia Both are limited by the 2nd.
You asked for: ...any language in the constitution that would permit the U.S. government to institute gun control. I delivered. Right/?
Article I Sec 8:16 Congress shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.... Congress has the power to require each member of the unorganized militia to provide himself with some kind of AR15 rifle or carbine, complete with sights and sling, chambered for 5.56x45, 8 or more 30 round magazines for said rifle or carbine,, 240 rounds of 5.56x45 ammunition, ad load bearing equipment sufficient for carrying said magazines. This is gun control. This does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
You want to make a 10th Amendment argument against federal gun control. Sometimes you can. Sometimes you can't.
Really, and how do you know that? Were you there at the time? Or did your crystal ball tell you? No-one 'knows' for certain what previous generations thought or intended - allowing for the few rare occasions where we still have diaries and memoirs addressing the specific thoughts or reasoning of past generations. And when we're talking about the famous or mighty? Half the time those records are self serving anyway. The best such documents usually do is provide some insight into the likely reasoning behind why someone said, did, or believed what they did. Which is also why we get multiple historians producing multiple books about the same subject, each offering a slightly different interpretation of the decisions behind that event. And we as readers? We usually end up preferring the 'version' of history that confirms our existing biases on the subject. The fact you like and approve of the established interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not proof the founding fathers intended it to be interpreted that way. That's purely a result of decisions made in courts of law nothing else. There are plenty of people who disagree with the courts interpretation. That doesn't mean they have a better grasp of what the founding fathers were thinking either. Tell you what. Once you've completed that time machine your working on in your basement why don't you go and ask them what they were thinking?
Funnily enough 1857 is also the year the Supreme Court decided that the US Constitution did not extend any rights or protections to African Americans. Care to argue that particular decision still has merit? All case law can be overturned/overridden via the appropriate constitutional mechanisms.
At the time the First Amendment was written, we didn't have the internet, computers, mass media, or instant worldwide communication. The founding fathers couldn't have possibly forseen these advancements in technology and how they would drastically change the scope of free speech. So, by your logic, we should go back to using quill and parchment and posting notices in the town square.....
Err no. By my 'logic' I'm saying that you personally cannot 'know' with absolute certainly what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the second amendment. No one can. That's why we have courts. So that subsequent generations can try to interpret the founding fathers intentions at the time they drafted the Constitution as best they can. How is that so complicated? Oh and BTW iPhones have nothing to do with anything.
