The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means that, unless the Constitution says that the Federal Government can pass laws about a subject, Congress is forbidden from legislating on the subject. Absolutely nothing in the constitution logically gives the Federal government the right to determine what kind of weapons may be owned, who may own these weapons, how these weapons may be modified, and how these weapons can be acquired in state. I have concluded that most federal gun laws are invalid, not necessarily by the Second Amendment (for example, I think one can lose the right to own guns by his or her actions) but by the Tenth- since Congress has no authority to pass laws such as these. We don't need the Second Amendment to prohibit stupid gun laws, we only need to demonstrate that these laws are not within the power of the federal government.
Even if these some of these laws may be good or helpful, that only means they should be enacted by the states, and not by the Federal Government. That is why I am uncertain about Project Exile- the results may be good, but the law behind it violates the Tenth Amendment.
It is my understanding that most federal gun laws enacted are presumed to be allowed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, allowing congress to regulate interstate commerce. The theory is, when an item like a gun or bullet is made in one state and sold in another, Congress can pass whatever laws they wish about the item for eternity. However, I would be willing to bet that even if the gun and bullets were made in your state, and never left, these laws would still be considered valid regarding the gun.
When congress prohibits you from turning your rifle to full auto in your basement, are they regulating "interstate commerce" or are they regulating your gun? When congress says a 12 year old can't get a handgun as a gift, how can they pretend they are regulating "commerce" and not guns? Since when does the INTERstate commerce clause allow congress to regulate gun purchases INTRAstate?
It's a lot easier to pull out a copy of the Constitution and ask the gun grabber to show where Congress has the power to enact X law, than it is to argue the militia, quotes, abstract theory, and the amount and effectiveness of self defense. You don't have to even prove X law is bad, and even if it saved lives, it wouldn't matter from a constitutional point of view. It might then be a matter for the state government, but not the federal one.
I suggest you read this rather long piece about this issue, as it formed my views on this matter:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-216.html
It concerns the "Gun Free Schools Act" and was written before the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Of course, the same act was re-enacted, this time with the provision that the "gun and ammunition move in, or substantially effect, interstate commerce." So, the historic Supreme Court decision was nullified by the insertion of a meaningless phrase. Consider everyone's favorite case, "Emerson." Reading the judge's much lauded decision, I noticed that he completely dismissed the Tenth Amendment argument in a couple of sentences. Odd, because a Tenth Amendment argument is even easier to prove than a Second Amendment one. His decision further helped legitimize the unconstitutional laws we have on the books already.
These instances lead me to believe that the Tenth Amendment will never be taken seriously. After all, who knows how many thousands and thousands of laws and programs would have to be eliminated if the Amendment was obeyed? Welfare...don't see that in the Constitution, Social Security, drugs, education and who knows what all.
If the Tenth Amendment was obeyed, the only laws we would have to worry about would be state ones, and quite a lot of us would be in good shape. Is there any flaws in my argument, or perspectives on this issue?
This means that, unless the Constitution says that the Federal Government can pass laws about a subject, Congress is forbidden from legislating on the subject. Absolutely nothing in the constitution logically gives the Federal government the right to determine what kind of weapons may be owned, who may own these weapons, how these weapons may be modified, and how these weapons can be acquired in state. I have concluded that most federal gun laws are invalid, not necessarily by the Second Amendment (for example, I think one can lose the right to own guns by his or her actions) but by the Tenth- since Congress has no authority to pass laws such as these. We don't need the Second Amendment to prohibit stupid gun laws, we only need to demonstrate that these laws are not within the power of the federal government.
Even if these some of these laws may be good or helpful, that only means they should be enacted by the states, and not by the Federal Government. That is why I am uncertain about Project Exile- the results may be good, but the law behind it violates the Tenth Amendment.
It is my understanding that most federal gun laws enacted are presumed to be allowed under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, allowing congress to regulate interstate commerce. The theory is, when an item like a gun or bullet is made in one state and sold in another, Congress can pass whatever laws they wish about the item for eternity. However, I would be willing to bet that even if the gun and bullets were made in your state, and never left, these laws would still be considered valid regarding the gun.
When congress prohibits you from turning your rifle to full auto in your basement, are they regulating "interstate commerce" or are they regulating your gun? When congress says a 12 year old can't get a handgun as a gift, how can they pretend they are regulating "commerce" and not guns? Since when does the INTERstate commerce clause allow congress to regulate gun purchases INTRAstate?
It's a lot easier to pull out a copy of the Constitution and ask the gun grabber to show where Congress has the power to enact X law, than it is to argue the militia, quotes, abstract theory, and the amount and effectiveness of self defense. You don't have to even prove X law is bad, and even if it saved lives, it wouldn't matter from a constitutional point of view. It might then be a matter for the state government, but not the federal one.
I suggest you read this rather long piece about this issue, as it formed my views on this matter:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-216.html
It concerns the "Gun Free Schools Act" and was written before the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Of course, the same act was re-enacted, this time with the provision that the "gun and ammunition move in, or substantially effect, interstate commerce." So, the historic Supreme Court decision was nullified by the insertion of a meaningless phrase. Consider everyone's favorite case, "Emerson." Reading the judge's much lauded decision, I noticed that he completely dismissed the Tenth Amendment argument in a couple of sentences. Odd, because a Tenth Amendment argument is even easier to prove than a Second Amendment one. His decision further helped legitimize the unconstitutional laws we have on the books already.
These instances lead me to believe that the Tenth Amendment will never be taken seriously. After all, who knows how many thousands and thousands of laws and programs would have to be eliminated if the Amendment was obeyed? Welfare...don't see that in the Constitution, Social Security, drugs, education and who knows what all.
If the Tenth Amendment was obeyed, the only laws we would have to worry about would be state ones, and quite a lot of us would be in good shape. Is there any flaws in my argument, or perspectives on this issue?
