Would You Accept a Supreme Court Ruling That there is No Individual Right Under

[The Rabbi]

As the federal government licenses gun dealers, manufactures and importers and regulates their business, they can prohibit the sale of firearms from dealers to civilians. They regulate explosives, so they control gun powder and primers. They can deem anything that travels in interstate commerce, like steel, cannot be used to make firearms. They pass a law that all existing firearms must be transferred through a FFL (no private person transfers).

If they had wanted to do that, dont you think they would have done it already? Under Clinton they cracked down on "kitchen table" dealers but did not outlaw them. Did anyone raise a ruckus about the 2A then? No.
Again, the Feds can pass any law they want. But then they gotta enforce it.

 

[vitesse9]

Rabbi wrote:
Again, the Feds can pass any law they want. But then they gotta enforce it.

I hear that argument a lot, but it doesn't make me feel any better. Why should I, an otherwise lawful person, have to choose between exercising a fundamental constitutional right and remaining on the right side of the law? The "sure it's on the books but no one enforces it" argument holds no water with me. The fact that they could enforce it has a chilling effect that is, in some respects, worse that rounding people up and throwing them in federal prison. Bad laws should be stopped before they get on the books in the first place.

The statute of limitations for federal felonies is long enough to survive several administations. One adminstration may not deem enforcement of a particular law a high priority, but four or eight years later, the story could be very different.

 

[The Rabbi]

You miss the point.
Ability to enforce a law is one consideration in passing it. In Canada they instituted gun registration and compliance was so low they are not enforcing it and will probably end up repealing it. They simply cannot put everyone in jail. The very fact that something cannot be enforced suggests that it will not be passed to begin with.

 

[vitesse9]

Rabbi wrote:
The very fact that something cannot be enforced suggests that it will not be passed to begin with.

You make a good point, and it is sometimes true. For example, I think one of the reasons why the '94 semi-auto ban grandfathered "pre-ban" guns and magazines was the impracticability of enforcing a confiscation. Yet, that was surely only part of the equation. I also think a "turn the all in Mr. and Mrs. America" approach would have been unpalatable to many in Congress at the time irrespective of the practical enforcement concerns.

Yet, there are still unenforceable gun laws on the books. For example, the practical effect of the '89 import ban is that some guns are imported despite their non-sporting features because they qualify as C&Os and are thereby exempt from the ban. The Yugo SKSs with the NATO grenade launchers are a perfect example of such guns. However, if the purchaser modifies the gun out of its "original military configuration" without playing the "10 or less" game, the owner may find himself technically committing a federal crime. Nonetheless, I see those Yugos modified all the time at the gun range and even it some gun shops. Clearly the ATF isn't kicking down doors, seizing these modified Yugos and dragging their owners off to jail. But, the law is still on the books, and my Yugo remains in its original configuration despite the fact that it would make a nice little deer rifle if I could sporterize it.

There's no denying that, in some instances, unenforceable laws are intentionally passed to chill behavior that cannot be otherwise regulated.

 

[butch50]

No.

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

I disagree, I don't think either side want a hearing on this- unless Hillary got in and was able to stack the bench following mass resignations of judges, it would simply be to risky.

NRA have not been prepared to run a hearing on it because of the potential risk and they have a far stronger argument than the antis.

The problem is that if you look back to the founding fathers- one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. The second amendment was created to provide the people (the militia) with the unltimate check and balance- the establishment could argue it is about arming terrorists. However, in argument I don't think anyone characterising Ben Franklin as a terrorist would get much of a hearing even in Britain! although at the time of the revolt, this would have been the perception.

However, the vast majority of gun owners are staunch patriots.

 

[tyme]

Rabbi, I think if the founding fathers were alive today, they would view such an amendment as a signal for revolution. No, I wasn't referring trying to refer to any other group as "the founders."

The source of this superconstitutional framework is debatable. One supporting element is the fact that the antifederalists didn't sign onto the Constitution without a guarantee of a Bill of Rights. Many of the founders were deists, and they would say (again, if they were alive today) that the source of the superconstitutional framework is God. The areligious among them would say that they are natural rights, and no government has any business infringing upon them.

The only reason the federal government would start the amendment process to remove the 2nd Amendment would be as preparation for more significant infringement on the natural right to keep and bear arms. Yes, that alone would be reason enough for rebellion against the federal government, though not necessarily against the State governments. The two are separate. Some states are already ripe for rebellion against their state governments, but others are not.