Is there any constitutional authorization for federal "gun control"

Starting this thread in response to this:

So as not to derail the poster's thread, I thought I'd start this one.

@Golem, @Turtledude, @Wild Bill Kelsoe, @Bullseye

 

To keep in context, please mention that this

*****************************************************************

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.” –Chief Justice John Marshall
United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cr.) 358, 396 (1805).​

Ok. That's all I'm going to say about this given that it's NOT what this thread is about. You say you are an "attorney", and a Constitutional Expert, and an "expert" on gun laws (you say do it for a living) and yet, you didn't know the above BY HEART!

You can agree or disagree with Chief Justice Marshal.... But you calling it "fiction-essentially a lie" makes my case!

Again: this is NOT the topic of this thread And I have no apetite to derail my own thread. For that reason, any other questions about this will be a link to this post.... IF I even bother to answer.
****************************************
...was a response to this gem...

I'm probably not interested. But I appreciate you promoting my post.

You see... if you read my sig you will notice that research is primary to the topics in which I participate. I don't have much to add to Justice Marshall's words. They stand all by themselves. And to add anything to them I would need time that I am using right now to research OTHER topics.

Good luck!

 

I have sigs turned off.

So I guess we'll take it as given that there is no constitutional authorization for federal gun control. Wow, that seems like it was easier than I expected.

 

You'd have to ask Chief Justice Marshall. He, and legislators who have have passed hundreds of laws based on that ruling for decades over the last 200 years+, appear to believe that there is. But I'll be happy to get back to you when I have time to do proper research, though. Feel free to try to rebut the Chief Justice, though.

BTW, I didn't know you could turn sigs off. Here is mine

NB: It took me a long time to research the validity of my arguments, and I suggest you do the same. This doesn't mean I'm always right. It only means I did my due diligence. Which, In most cases, simply means I did a google search to make sure what I write is not B.S. And remember: I do my research. I don't do yours. If you have a point to make, that's your burden. Don't ask me to do your research for you.

It includes good advice....

 

So nothing in the actual written law that we can put our finger on?

 

Just to clarify, this thread is about the Constitution. It's not about the Supreme Court.

Carry on...

 

Hah! That's hilarious!

This is from the time when the Supreme Court WAS about the Constitution. Maybe before your time, but SCOUTS WAS a respected institution before Chief Justice Roberts allowed it to go down the toilet.

 

So still unable to find any language in the document that would permit US gov't gun restrictions? This truly was way easier than I had expected.

 

Article 1, Section 8 Read it! That's what the ruling I quoted is about!

YOU opened the thread YOU have to do your own research. Don't expect me to do your research for you.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Nothing granting congress the power to enact gun control legislation.

 

Oh, and @Patricio Da Silva would probably be interested in this thread as well.

 

Bingo! I only respond to encourage you because you FINALLY did a bit of research. Not much... but some.

The above is what Chief Justice Marshall is referring to. Now you can take it out with him, if you want. With him and with all the Terms of Congress since then that have acted following the principle I quoted.

I gave you the little "push", the rest is up to you. You're on your own.... Good luck!

 

As I said earlier, this thread is about the constitution, not the supreme court.

And how would the "the foregoing powers" clause apply in the case of congressional authorization to ban guns?

 

Wow! That was a lot easier than I thought.

So nothing in the constitution that would allow federal gun control.

 

the only authorization came from a dishonest federal judge who conspired with the FDR administration to get a case to a dishonest supreme court. Combine that with the FDR expansion of the commerce clause and "authorization" was pulled out of the national jurisprudential anus

 

I'm still looking for one of these gun banners to cite any constitutional language.

 

they cannot, at best they will pretend that the commerce clause trumps the tenth and second amendments

 

Owning a firearm is not commerce. But you already know this...

 

Given the language of the second amendment-what exactly do you claim is consistent with the spirit of the constitution

 

I think they (@Golem) ghosted us...

 

Wow, just checking in. This thread is like kryptonite!

 

it's hard to actually create an honest argument that federal gun control is not a violation of at least two-and perhaps three-amendments in the bill of rights

 

Why do you keep asking the same question again and again? Already answered multiple times....
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-a-single-shot.600040/page-45#post-1074405620

 

no you have never actually answered this question. you have yet to come up with any evidence that the founders thought the federal government should have any form of gun control powers. You have never addressed the brutal point Kates made in that seminal law review article: a militia use does not exclude other uses

 

Ah! So you DID notice it wasn't working too well for ya.