Rudy Giuliani, Guns, and Federalism

It seems that way to me, roy

922 (q)
(1) The Congress finds and declares that—

(A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem;

(B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs;

(C) firearms and ammunition move easily in interstate commerce and have been found in increasing numbers in and around schools, as documented in numerous hearings in both the Committee on the Judiciary [3] the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate;

(D) in fact, even before the sale of a firearm, the gun, its component parts, ammunition, and the raw materials from which they are made have considerably moved in interstate commerce;

(E) while criminals freely move from State to State, ordinary citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel to or through certain parts of the country due to concern about violent crime and gun violence, and parents may decline to send their children to school for the same reason;

(F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country;

(G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States;

(H) States, localities, and school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crime by themselves—even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent, detect, and punish gun-related crime find their efforts unavailing due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures; and

(I) the Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution, to enact measures to ensure the integrity and safety of the Nation’s schools by enactment of this subsection.
 
Last edited:
The difference between this site and the Sarah Brady site is that we allow different views here? I thought there was another difference, having to do with the political bias of the two forums.

The way I'm looking at it, the SCOTUS struck down the gun free school zones on the grounds that Congress exceeded their delegated powers ... and then Clinton asked Reno how to circumvent the ruling, and they rewrote the law to apply to guns that have some (pretended) relation to interstate commerce ... and didn't the Clinton Congress write 922(q) as part of this attempt to circumvent the SCOTUS saying that the Congress doesn't have gun control powers? Now, since the SCOTUS struck down a federal gun law as exceeding federal powers, and the Clinton Congress wrote 922(q) as part of an attempt to circumvent the ruling, then why oh why do folks on a RKBA forum side with the Clinton Congress on this one?

I believe that the SCOTUS was right, that the feds do not have gun control powers, and that 922(q) is simply an attempt for Congress to delegate themselves powers ... I think y'all are still confusing what Congress says (922(q)) with the US Constitution (which reserves police powers to the States).

I believe that 922(q) is arbitrary. I think it would as much sense, or more sense, to say that gun laws make us afraid to travel because we are afraid we will end up being prosecuted for being armed, and so the interstate commerce power means that we cannot have laws like the gun free school zone. In that case, if the question was whether the Constitution delegates the US a power to strike down gun laws as interfering with interstate commerce, I would expect folks on a forum like this to have a bias where they might say that Congress has such a power ... but when the question is whether the Constitution delegates the US a power to pass gun laws such as a law requiring a need to own a handgun, I would expect folks on an RKBA forum, even if they had no respect at all for federalism, to say that the US has no such power.

I'm starting to wonder if someone here believes that the US has a power to pass the law in question, but the States don't, because they don't have the elastic clause or the interstate commerce clause? What about police powers being reserved to the States? Doesn't "reserved" mean "not delegated"?
 
Hugh, you're right, but there's a major problem.

If a case similar to the Lopez case came before the Supreme Court again, they would be asking Scalia to overrule the Congressional findings in 922 (q) 1, and he doesn't generally want to do that. They would be asking Thomas to rule contrary to Raich, and he showed in the Oregon case what he thinks about that idea. Losing either vote would mean losing the case.

If we have a President Giuliani who believes Congress has the power to regulate handgun ownership, what kind of Justices might he appoint?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top