NRA vs Constitution?

V

Valdez

Moderator
What's with the NRA?

I see Heston pushing enforcement of the federal guns in school act, which the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional.
Is this a clever scheme or is Heston clueless?

Yeah, I know that Congress immediately passed the same bill again with the words interstate commerce inserted numerous times, but the court will strike down this ploy if the Feds are dumb enough to try and charge anyone again.
 
Yes. Presumably Heston would also encourage enforcement of the extreme licensing required to possess a short barreled shotgun or a full auto. Also unconstitutional. As are most provisions of the NFA of 1934(?) and GCA of 1968.

Wouldn't it be nice if the NRA encouraged enforcement of only Constitutional gun laws? Bye-bye BATF.
 
Educate me here guys. What is the "federal guns in school act". If already ruled unconstitutional it must be dated. And if so, how does the "1000 ft. from school" or "outside of school" laws meet constitutional requirements?
 
G-Freeman: Ok, remember the "Lopez decision"? The Dems enacted the "Gun free school zone act", which prohibited firearms possession within 1000 ft of school property. The Supreme court struck it down as unconstitutional, because regulating gun possession near a school really had nothing to do with regulating interstate commerce, the enumerated power Congress was pretending to exercise. Here's a link to the decision: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10287

This case was historic on two counts: First, the first time in living memory the S.C. actually placed a limit on how far it would stretch the interstate commerce clause, and second, the first gun law they struck down.

Valdez: It's NOT a clever scheme, and Heston ISN'T clueless. He just doesn't give a bucket of warm spit about the Constitution. No, I take that back; He may very well be clueless; His chief qualifications for the office of NRA President are, after all, a resonant speaking voice, and the ability to remember his lines and refrain from ad libbing. He was chosen as a charismatic figurehead, not a leader.

Oh, and Val, you're wrong; The Republicans did more than insert the phrase "interstate commerce"; They also inserted a provision allowing police to set up roadblocks where highways cross the 1000 ft. line, and search all the cars going through for guns. I don't know whether to be glad that the police have had the sense to never attempt enforcing THAT provision, or to regret that they didn't try it, which would have raised a HUGE stink.

But it's a bit unfair to blame ALL the Republicans for this one; The Kohl amendment re-enacting this idiocy was inserted into an omnibus spending bill in conference committee, and the GOP leadership actually LIED to their own members about it's existance in the bill, in order to prevent a floor fight which might have delayed Congress ajourning for Christmas vacation. Though if you want to blame the GOP members for believing their leaders, (Who they know quite well lie to them at the drop of a hat!) instead of the NRA, I'd go with that.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Oh, and Val, you're wrong; The Republicans did more than insert the phrase "interstate commerce"; They also inserted a provision allowing police to set up roadblocks where highways cross the 1000 ft. line, and search all the cars going through for guns.[/quote]

Oh yeah. Support the republicans. They're our last best hope this century. Right.
www.lp.org

------------------
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals. ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” -Alexander Addison, 1789
 
Brett thanks for the info. I never actually read the new bill but I did see a transcript of a committee hearing about it.

It was hilarious in a perverse way. Some Senator made the statement that if there was any role for the federal government it was in keeping guns out of schools! Yeah I remember that part of Art1 sec8.

There was also nonsense discussion that they could pass the exact same bill if they inserted language about guns or gun parts having moved in interstate commerce before being brought to school.

Didn't know about the incredible 1000' highway roadblock language. Does this relate to the project Exile that Heston is always lauding?

I hear that "Exile" has roadblocks and auto searches as modus operandi.
 
Valdez: I suppose that if the antis REALLY wanted to start a fight, they could include the Kohl amendment as one of the federal gun laws enforced in "Project Exile". (And I hope Heston's car is the first one stopped!)

Realisticly, though, they know that the present court would strike the law down again in a real hurry, and I think they've been laying low on enforcing it, lest they generate a test case. Certainly, the antis wouldn't want the adverse publicity stopping cars on the highway to enforce such a stupid law would cause.

------------------
Sic semper tyranus!
 
I think C. Heston is a great actor. That said, it sounds from what you guys said, if he gets his way w/Project Exile; one of these days he's going to be in tears pounding the ground saying, "You x!@%*@@$#%! APES!!!.......X!@#@ TO X*!@! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!!!!!!!!!" :( !!! .........

;) Robert
The statue of liberty is crumbling, my friends....
------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)


[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited November 07, 1999).]
 
Heston has been on Politically Incorrect twice and both times he has mentioned the twelve amendments to the Constitution and both times was corrected by Bill Maher. The original BoR had twelve amendments but two were not ratified and thus the third became the first and the fourth the second, etc.

He's not THAT old, is he?
 
The more I think about this the worse it seems for the NRA.

Sure, keeping guns out of school sounds great to the sheeple, but it isn't within the power of the Feds.

What sort of reception is the NRA going to get before the Supreme Court if we finally get a real 2nd case and the NRA has a history of flipping the bird to the Court and siding with those who want to override Lopez?
 
I fail to relize how anyone in thier right mind can advocate gun laws of ANY kind. Do leaders of lobyists groups think that they will placate the liberal establishment politicians, courts, and media by agreeing and dare I say promoting gun laws? Do they think that the opposition will actually join hands and say, " Yes, NOW we find common ground and have seen the light. We have changed our minds about firearm confiscation! You guys aren't the right wing extremist that we thought you were. We are all wanting to accomplish the same things after all!" Someone educate me....

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top