Does a law have to have a valid reason?

D

DMK

New member
Does a US law have to have a valid reason and effect to be legal? Can something legally (constitutionally?) be against the law just because some legislators feel uncomfortable with it?

Can the government outlaw red cars because they are provocative and may cause someone to speed? What is the legal justification for this?

For example, AWBs in various states specifically outlaw certain physical attributes. Again, what is the legal justification for this?

We all know it's just an excuse to ban some guns, but that is not what is stated by those creating the laws. It's argued that it is to prevent crime, specifically mass shootings. We also know that it won't. But that's not the point here.


What affect does outlawing a flash hider have? What crimes have been committed that this prevents?

What affect does outlawing a pistol grip have? What crimes have been committed that this prevents?

How many people have died or been injured because a stock is collapsible?

How is it legal to ban these "features" if they are made up "boogiemen", with no evidence of them contributing to crime or endanger the public in any way?


.
 
"Don't let it poison, you heart"

Does a US law have to have a valid reason and effect to be legal?
Click to expand...
Valid reason, is too subjective and it all depends on whose "measure" is being presented. History has proven that being "valid", ethical or moral has nothing to do with legality. Hey-Man, we see this everyday. ...... :cool:

Be Safe !!!
 
It's really much more complicated.

For example, a law that burdens a constitutionally protected right can be subjected to a sort of test in which a court considers the nature and significance of the right, the nature and extent of the the burden, and the importance of the governmental interests furthered by the imposition of the burden as part of the process of deciding whether a particular law regulating a right protected by the Constitution is, or is not, constitutionally permissible.

For example:

  • The Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the States in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Therefore the citizens of every State are entitled to enjoy the RKBA to the extent required by the Constitution, and any regulation by a State of the RKBA must be limited in a manner which will pass constitutional muster. The uncertainty here is that Second Amendment jurisprudence is at its formative stage, and therefore the constitutional limits to the regulation of the RKBA are not at present well defined.

  • Even though the Second Amendment now (since McDonald) is a limit on a State's power to exercise its police powers with respect to the regulation of the RKBA, it's well settled law that under certain circumstance and to some extent a constitutionally protected right may be regulated. What those circumstance might be and the nature and extent of permissible regulation will be worked out by the courts. To do so, a court will consider, among other things, the nature of the right, the nature of the regulation, and the governmental purpose intended to be served.

  • For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion against laws that abridge those rights we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:

    1. Various laws (both state and federal) prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation. There are also state and federal laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, which are valid and routinely enforced even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech.

    2. If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regularly enforced.

    3. Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:

      • Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
        ...We are likewise persuaded that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement...
        Click to expand...

        • Cf. McCullen v. Coakley (U. S. Supreme Court, No. 12–1168, 2014)


        • In McCullen the Court struck down a new Massachusetts "buffer zone" law. As noted in the opinion the Court had previously sustained a different sort of buffer zone law in Colorado, and nothing in McCullen casts any doubt on the continued validity of the Colorado law (McCullen, slip opinion at 2):
          ….The statute [the prior Massachusetts law] was modeled on a similar Colorado law that this Court had upheld in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703 (2000). Relying on Hill, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sustained the Massachusetts statute against a First Amendment challenge. McGuire v. Reilly, 386 F. 3d 45 (2004) (McGuire II), cert. denied, 544 U. S. 974 (2005); McGuire v. Reilly, 260 F. 3d 36 (2001) (McGuire I).

          By 2007, some Massachusetts legislators and law enforcement officials had come to regard the 2000 statute as inadequate.....
          Click to expand...

      • Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
        ...A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...
        Click to expand...

    4. In the leading case on prior restraint (Near v. State of Minnesota, Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931)) the Court in striking down a Minnesota statute allowing for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of malicious, scandalous and defamatory news analyzed in considerable detail and depth the scope and extent of the infringement of the freedom of press, the interests served and the availability of other and narrower remedies. And the Court then reached the conclusion that the statute went too far to be a permissible regulation.

      But nonetheless the Court also noted that certain interests, under certain circumstances would justify even prior restraint (Near, 283 U. S. 657, at 715 - 716):
      ...The objection has also been made that the principle as to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly, if every such restraint is deemed to be prohibited. That is undoubtedly true; the protection even as to previous restraint is not absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has been recognized only in exceptional cases. 'When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its error that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.' Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52, 39 S. Ct. 247, 249, 63 L. Ed. 470. No one would question but that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops.6 On similar grounds, the primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications. The security of the community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government. The constitutional guaranty of free speech does not 'protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 139, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874.' Schenck v. United States, supra. These limitations are not applicable here. Nor are we now concerned with questions as to the extent of authority to prevent publications in order to protect private rights according to the principles governing the exercise of the jurisdiction of courts of equity...
      Click to expand...

    5. In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)).

  • So in fact the reality is that rights protected by the Constitution may nonetheless be subject to some limited regulation. The foregoing discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts.

  • We can not expect, nor will we see, perfect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence is quite mature at this point, but Second Amendment jurisprudence, in the wake of Heller, is in its infancy. However, we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts.
 
Thanks Frank. I agree that a comparison of the 2nd amendment to other constitutional cases is far from perfect, but in my opinion, this gets right to the heart of what I'm saying:
..A narrowly-tailored permitting regulation need not be the least restrictive means of furthering a locality's asserted interests. The regulation may not, however, burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals. See United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir.1999). "[T]he requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied `so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.'" Ward, 491 U.S. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (quoting United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985))...
Click to expand...

I think the banning of cosmetic features such as pistol grips, flash hiders and collapsible stocks is very much "burden substantially more... than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals" and does not promote "a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation".
 
I think the banning of cosmetic features such as pistol grips, flash hiders and collapsible stocks is very much "burden substantially more... than necessary to achieve a scheme's important goals" and does not promote "a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation".
Click to expand...

If enough people in Congress in 1994 had believed that, we wouldn't have gotten the crap law and its still surviving state copies, some of which have been expanded since the Fed law expired.

It doesn't matter so much what the facts are or what reality is, what matters more is what our lawmakers believe. I remember some of the "facts" claimed at the time, such as how a pistol grip make the weapon easier to kill someone with...

The Flash suppressor ban ALMOST has a basis in fact. Almost. There is (or was) a standard size flash suppressor used in NATO which has a rifle grenade that fits it. WE (the US) don't use that rifle grenade, but since our lawmakers were told how the grenade fits the flash suppressor, and how these grenades are available at every 7-11 (deliberate sarcasm on my part here) then the flash suppressor had to be an EVIL feature.

Not sure about the bayonet lugs, probably banned them because of all the drive by bayonettings...:eek::rolleyes:

It does not have to be reason. It does not have to be logic. It does not have to be TRUE. All it has to be is passed by ONE VOTE and it becomes law, unless the President /Governor vetos it.

That's our system, for both good and bad.

There's an old quote, I don't remember it exactly, but what I do recall goes like this.
"The law may upset reason, but reason must never be allowed to upset the law..."

if any of you know the correct version, I'd like to hear it.
 
44 AMP said:
If enough people in Congress in 1994 had believed that, we wouldn't have gotten the crap law and its still surviving state copies, some of which have been expanded since the Fed law expired.

It doesn't matter so much what the facts are or what reality is, what matters more is what our lawmakers believe. I remember some of the "facts" claimed at the time, such as how a pistol grip make the weapon easier to kill someone with...

The Flash suppressor ban ALMOST has a basis in fact. Almost. There is (or was) a standard size flash suppressor used in NATO which has a rifle grenade that fits it. WE (the US) don't use that rifle grenade, but since our lawmakers were told how the grenade fits the flash suppressor, and how these grenades are available at every 7-11 (deliberate sarcasm on my part here) then the flash suppressor had to be an EVIL feature.

Not sure about the bayonet lugs, probably banned them because of all the drive by bayonettings...:eek::rolleyes:

It does not have to be reason. It does not have to be logic. It does not have to be TRUE. All it has to be is passed by ONE VOTE and it becomes law, unless the President /Governor vetos it.

That's our system, for both good and bad.

There's an old quote, I don't remember it exactly, but what I do recall goes like this.
"The law may upset reason, but reason must never be allowed to upset the law..."

if any of you know the correct version, I'd like to hear it.
Click to expand...
NATO flash suppressor? Which one was that?
 
Last edited:
There are lots of inexplicable laws on the books. One 2A law in my former hometown was that you could carry a pistol in your hand but that it must be a Colt Revolver! Probably a Jim Crow era law but then a silly fellow did just that and was arrested. Made for some fun. The guy was an infamous Internet troll for years.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
There are lots of inexplicable laws on the books. One 2A law in my former hometown was that you could carry a pistol in your hand but that it must be a Colt Revolver! Probably a Jim Crow era law but then a silly fellow did just that and was arrested. Made for some fun. The guy was an infamous Internet troll for years.
Click to expand...
The gunshop dealt exclusively in Colt and bribed the local politician. :confused:
 
"The law may upset reason, but reason must never be allowed to upset the law..."

if any of you know the correct version, I'd like to hear it.
Click to expand...

Goodreads via Google says it's James Clavell:

“The law may upset reason but reason may never upset the law, or our whole society will shred like an old tatami. The law may be used to confound reason, reason must certainly not be used to overthrow the law.”

― James Clavell, Shōgun
 
Does a politician elected by the people have to do what the majority of the people want? NOPE. That is proven daily, so there are plenty of laws that many will say are NOT valid.
 
Does a politician elected by the people have to do what the majority of the people want? NOPE.
Click to expand...

I'm actually conflicted on that . No because the mob should not rule , yes because they elected you to do there bidding .

I came to the conclusion that your rep should do what she/he said they would do during the campaign because that's what go them elected .

As for laws , I recently have been thinking that laws should have a principle written into them . Meaning "this is why the law was written and this is what it is supposed to accomplish" . I believe this would allow debate and retraction of laws that don't do what they were intended to do . I also believe it would stop loopholes to where people trying to get around the law by claiming it doesn't say something specific . You/we can go back and look at the principle/intent of the law to see if what one is trying to do is in violation of said intent .

How that all would work IDK because maybe a law does 20% of what was intended , would that be good enough to satisfy ? Like banning CC , Ok why and what's the outcome you expect . If it's to reduce gun related crimes and it doesn't then the law must be taken off the books .
 
Last edited:
silly laws

Excellent response, Frank.

"New" laws keep politicians names in the public eye and are good for re-election purposes.

Contact these Congressmen and let them know your objections and why. Be brief and to the point and spelling does count.
 
101combatvet said:
The gunshop dealt exclusively in Colt and bribed the local politician.
Click to expand...

The law was passed in the early 20th Century and the alleged reason was that the Colts were the most expensive and most black folk then could not afford them and wealthier whites could. Almost ALL gun control laws enacted in the early 20th century were Jim Crow.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
The law was passed in the early 20th Century and the alleged reason was that the Colts were the most expensive and most black folk then could not afford them and wealthier whites could. Almost ALL gun control laws enacted in the early 20th century were Jim Crow.
Click to expand...
They must have forgotten about Smith & Wesson and Remington.
 
As for laws , I recently have been thinking that laws should have a principle written into them . Meaning "this is why the law was written and this is what it is supposed to accomplish" .
Click to expand...
Many laws do have such prefatory statements explaining their basic purpose. Sometimes they are codified and sometimes they are not, in which case you have to go back to the original bill. These prefatory statements are normally only referred to when a portion of the statute is unclear or ambiguous. The plain language of the operative portions of the statute will normally prevail over prefatory language unless a plain-language interpretation creates an absurd or nonsensical result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top