A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Tomorrow, the president will unveil his gun control agenda based on recommendations from Joe Biden (one feels safer already). There are some serious questions about potential threats to Second Amendment rights, and, as John Yoo points out below, there are also questions about how much the president can accomplish by executive order alone.
But I have a more fundamental question: Why is any of this the federal government's business? The Constitution gives Congress no general police power to oversee the registration and use of firearms. The Commerce Clause allows the federal government to set rules for inter-state sales of guns, but that's about the extent of Congress's power regarding civilian use of guns.
One cannot argue that the states are incapable of acting in this area - all states have some form of gun control. While Biden was consulting, the New York Legislature passed the toughest gun control law in the nation.
When conservatives debate about the limits of federal gun control, they have already accepted the premise that this is a valid area of federal policy. Is it?
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (11)
Comments:
May '11
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Other than their Constitutional obligation to protect our right to bear arms, they have no valid area for policy.
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
"...why is any of this the federal government's business?"
When, in recent history, has such a question ever prevented federal action? Or even acted as a speed bump to federal action? I'd suggest asking John Roberts, but I'm pretty sure how he would respond.
Mar '11
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
"Are you serious? Are you serious?"
May '11
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Excellent point, Adam. Next, let's tackle the commerce clause... to paraphrase Blue State Blues' comment, above. As someone who has also studied constitutional law, I am honestly at the point where I've already been shown that reasoning is irrelevant, as is the text. I am rather disillusioned.
May '11
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Second term. Opportunity presents itself. Nothing to lose. It's not unreasonable to assume that certain [all] members of the administration would be happy to disarm all the citizens of this country. It's unlikely that the Attorney General's outlook on firearms is any different than when he made this video: http://www.mrctv.org/videos/1995-holder-wanted-campaign-really-brainwash-people-guns
Jun '10
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Adam Freedman:
The commerce clause allows the federal government to set rules for inter-state sales of guns...
[Talking through my hat alert]
The Feds seemed to have won most of the challenges to their alphabet agencies. The ATF has claimed that its regulations supersede the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which is a direct challenge to Federal control. A suit in support of the Act was dismissed by the US District Court and has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
The Feds are certainly going to use their biggest Wickard v. Filburn sledgehammer.
Edited on January 16, 2013 at 3:47pmAug '11
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Yeah, but who's gonna stop him? House Republicans?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Jun '12
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
It is all about Wickerd v Filburn, until that terrible decision is overturned/moderated the Federal Government is entitiled to do almost anything, or so they say. Since O was relected, our best hope is that the conservatives we have live long and prosper, else it will only get worse judicially.
May '11
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
You answered your own question. The commerce clause.
Jul '11
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Anything is possible. At one time I thought the Constitution meant something, that laws meant something but any more some bright lawyer can twist it to justify anything. Then the government does what it wants with what force it wants and rights go away. Later the over reach is the new norm and the whole cycle starts over.
Nov '10
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
Well of course as the others have said, the Constitution means nothing to the left. They actually poke fun at anyone who takes it seriously. A liberal colleague of mine thought it was quite hilarious when he told me that he and several of his friends had take to meeting over white wine and their pocket copies of the constitution, and they'd each take turns reading passages from it and commenting on how outrageous it is.
The left just don't see the constitution as anything other than a musty old document that is beyond it's usefulness. I don't know that they've ever seen it as a limiting document, because that goes against their worldview.
Sep '10
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
This is a good argument but it does not address "sensible" federal regulations of arms.
Few will argue that the government should allow full-auto machine guns, marine mines, or artillery pieces for home use. It seems like once we have let the camel's nose under the tent the whole thing is fair game and what we argue about is not the right to bear arms but where to draw the line on sensible regulation.
One could argue that this is entirely a state matter, but don't you think the negative externalities of weapons bleeding over from one state to another would trigger federal action?
Edited on January 16, 2013 at 6:52pmMay '12
Re: A Question About Tomorrow's Big Gun Control Announcement
"...why is any of this the federal government's business?"
It's not. This is local or state.
But the Socialist pushes everything up. Not to mention, if schools hire police, that's just more public employee union dues.