Is there any constitutional authorization for federal "gun control"

I think you are confused. His point is supported by those posters who actually understand constitutional law

 

Of course it doesn't! It doesn't exclude OR include them. It just just doesn't address them in any way whatsoever.

Look.... You said you do gun "rights" and the Constitution for a living. And it's not my intention to question your livelihood. But you asked for LEGAL scholar's opinion. Unless you don't think Chief Justice John Marshall was a legal scholar, this is one reference you would have had to know by heart. Not for a second do I believe you didn't know this. So I don't understand why you keep putting your professional reputation on the line by constantly changing the subject and resorting to strawman arguments like the above.

Don't do that! Just go with the facts! There are other arguments you can cling to. Just say, for exmple "the Supreme Court ruled xxxx period!" It will only last until a less activist Supreme Court overturns it but at least it IS a fact... for now.

Ignoring history, ignoring EXPERTS in your own field (even if you disagree with them)... and, worst of all, constantly trying to change the subject (i.e. strawman arguments) are not only not going to help you make your case, but YOU end up compromising your professional image.

Leave dumb arguments like endlessly and without any basis repeating "It's unconstitutional!" to folks from whom we don't expect serious arguments anyway, like @Chickpea

 

your INTERPRETATION of Marshall's comments is irrelevant to the gun issue.

any other attorneys out there want to explain to Golem why's argument has no validity. there isn't an insinuated power to regulate firearms anyplace in the constitution

 

Here is the bottom line-let's assume that the ONLY reason the founders penned the second amendment was so that those who would, could or possibly serve in a militia (which is an ad hoc emergency military unit that does not exist until it is called up to deal with a military emergency: militia members are not professional soldiers-not part of a standing army-and have other professions that require most of their time save when they have assembled into a militia).

For that to work, those potential militia members must own and possess firearms. To claim otherwise is beyond idiotic. So the right guaranteed is that of these people to own, have use possess firearms. The gun banners want to pretend that other things-hunting, target shooting, self defense are not protected. but that is idiotic-the right that is protected is one of possession. the USE is not relevant

 

You mean "more activist in the other direction".

 

My interpretation of Marshall's comments is irrelevant. You did not read my post. I urge you to take some time and actually READ it.

 

Members of the armed forces don't own their firearms and it ALSO kinda "works". But that's irrelevant. What is relevant is that the 2nd A does not address ownership. And what is MORE relevant is that you keep changing the subject. And you continuously doing that is what undermines your case.

In the threads about the militia, you want to talk about linguistics, in threads about linguistics you want to talk about court opinions, and in THIS thread which is about a court opinion you want to talk about militias. Pathetic!

 

Nope. I meant what I said.

 

are you still trying to pretend that those who are actively part of a standing army where they are in barracks with an arsenal are the same as private citizens who may be called up? tell us how you can pretend that private citizens would "keep and bear" arms and not be permitted to own them. FIND ONE FOUNDER WHO ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT TRIPE

 

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publi...right-of-the-people-or-a-privilege-of-the-few

If the framers meant to protect nothing more than keeping arms in the home, there would have been no point in including a right to bear arms.

-pretending that keeping is somehow distinct from owning is a real gut buster

additionally

The unitary phrase “the right of the people” appears in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments. The right to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, and security from unreasonable searches and seizures, are rights of the people, and may not be limited to a select few determined by government officials to have a special need. So too, “the right of the people to . . . bear arms” extends to the populace at large and is not restricted to a subset of people favored by government to bear arms

 

No. I'm just rebutting your claim that defending the country could not possibly work unless those who defend it OWN their firearms.

 

that's changing the goal posts-the issue is this-is there any constitutional authority for the federal government to interfere with what private citizens own in terms of arms-and the answer is NO. On top of that the second amendment protects the right of PRIVATE CITIZENS to keep (which means OWN) firearms. you have yet to even come close to rebutting that point. You want to pretend that since regular army soldiers are ISSUED weapons, private citizens don't need to OWN them. that is a dishonest attempt to evade the fact that the second amendment is a negative restriction on what a federal government can do

 

Exactly! Which means they DIDN'T intend to protect (or not protect, to pre-empt your strawman) keeping arms in the home. The matter was not even addressed.

I'm curious to know if @Chickpea has taken note of how the poster he HOPED would bail them out of the post he quoted in the OP is desperately trying to change the subject.

 

Chief Justice Marshall apparently begs to differ about that being the issue. And I prefer to stick with the thread topic.... lest I provoke the rage of the Mods. And the author of the OP is very fond of reporting posts. Mine, of course... not yours. So I best be careful.

 

you completely missed the point.

 

I reject your bogus misinterpretation of your take on what Marshall says

I am still waiting for you to actually address the TOPIC of this thread

 

This is the first time you say something FACTUAL. What you said was true. And now you run away from it?

Like you said, the framers saw NO POINT in protecting keeping arms at home or including it in an amendment. Which was the point I made in this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

Looks like you accidently told the truth, and now you wish you hadn't.

It's still not the topic of this thread, but I couldn't pass the opportunity to congratulate you for finally pointing out a true fact.

 

That's one guy who is disagreement with at least James Madison, Chief Justice Chase and Chief Justice Roberts.

"Madison first popularized this enumerationist reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause in his arguments against the first Bank of the United States, which he later reinforced in his celebrated “Report of 1800” and his presidential veto of the bonus bill in 1817. Chief Justice Chase advanced a similar doctrine in Hepburn v. Griswold and the Legal Tender Cases, as did Chief Justice Roberts in Sebelius. Yet this cramped understanding of implied powers is at variance with the theory of implied powers deployed by Marshall in Fisher. Unlike Madison, Chase, and Roberts, Marshall does not assume in Fisher that the Sweeping Clause is limited to executing “express powers” or “powers enumerated in the Constitution.” Nor does he utilize the “great powers” theory on which he is alleged to have relied in McCulloch. On the contrary, Marshall’s opinion in Fisher illustrates why those conceptions of implied powers are too limited."

McCulloch v. Maryland, Slavery, the Preamble, and the Sweeping Clause
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3819353
You can pick the download or open in a browser.

 

if your claims about Marshall are true-why did FDR's administration concoct the Commerce Clause nonsense

 

you missed the point-the term bearing was to protect firearms taken outside the home

BTW your use of Marshall misses a key point-there isn't any hint of a federal gun control power or that having such a power relates to any of the powers of congress

 

Sure they did:

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).

 

I am still waiting for him to establish that Marshall's comments attach to any gun control power that he seems to think was insinuated in Article One Section Eight.

 

I'm not interpreting anything. I'm quoting what he says. He TELLS US what needs to be discussed when determining if Congress has or doesn't have the power to legislate on a matter.

You have completely derailed this thread. So I'm going to open one in which THAT is the topic.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...gitimate-issue-even-if-not-enumerated.613231/

 

No they didn't
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

 

I am tired of you pretending to be a moderator and telling others what the topic of the thread is-I don't see the guy who started the thread taking issue with my posts. I also reject your claims that Marshall's general comments somehow apply to gun control. FIND ME ONE QUOTE OF HIS WHERE HE SAYS THE CONGRESS WAS GIVEN FEDERAL GUN CONTROL POWERS