Gun laws: Is this consitutional?

[Polaris]

You are not wrong. but as you implied, the sheriff can impose a de facto ban on title 2 weapons in their jurisdiction just by withholding his or her signature. Using a trust or Corp. to own the firearm is an easy way around the sig, but then the gun is not personally owned.

Ranb

Or you could actively work to have a new sheriff elected.

 

[Bob Klase]

if Congress can order ALL able-bodied white men between the ages of 18-45 to buy a gun, than the Federal govt. can therefore regulate gun ownership/manufacture/sale within individual states.

I don't think you you honestly hold the opinion that Congress can legally order all able-bodied white men between the ages of 18-45 to buy a gun?

 

[Freddy]

Or you could actively work to have a new sheriff elected.

That hypothetical sheriff's actions may well be illegal under Arizona law, although I don't know Arizona law well enough to say that with confidence. Of course, you could always just wait until the Supreme Court incorporates the 2nd Amendment this fall in the McDonald case, at which point the hypothetical sheriff's actions would certainly be illegal.

 

[Freddy]

I don't think you you honestly hold the opinion that Congress can legally order all able-bodied white men between the ages of 18-45 to buy a gun?

Congress did exactly that in the late 1700s. But I'm fairly sure such a law would be held unconstitutional today, since we are not under threat of imminent invasion as we were when the Militia Act was passed. Therefore it would not be "necessary and proper" to the execution of Congress' Article I sec. 8 Militia Power.

But guns are clearly articles of interstate commerce, so Congress can regulate them to the extent that the regulations actually regulate the interstate gun market, and so long as the regulations do not violate any other part of the Constitution. Congress has no power under any clause to violate the bill of rights, but they can regulate even intrastate activity if it substantially affects interstate commerce.

Allowing in-state guns to be exempt from federal regulations will affect the interstate market for guns. Arizona residents would be crazy to buy guns manufactured elsewhere and subject themselves to (at least somewhat) onerous regulations they could avoid by buying an in-state gun. This would basically amount to economic protectionism, which no state can implement as against other states.

 

[Ranb]

Or you could actively work to have a new sheriff elected.

Well yeah. Easier said than done though. Not a single person I voted for in the last general election was elected. I am starting to feel left out, haha. I am supposed to be able to meet with a few of my Reps in Olympia next month in an attempt to push a bill out of committee and onto the House floor for a vote. Not holding my breath though.

Ranb

 

[cwalner]

Allowing in-state guns to be exempt from federal regulations will affect the interstate market for guns. Arizona residents would be crazy to buy guns manufactured elsewhere and subject themselves to (at least somewhat) onerous regulations they could avoid by buying an in-state gun. This would basically amount to economic protectionism, which no state can implement as against other states.

I think it would go even further than that. Would not an AZ gun manufacturer need to prove that none of their guns are sold out of state to avoid federal gun regulations under the interstate commerce clause?

 

[Freddy]

I think it would go even further than that. Would not an AZ gun manufacturer need to prove that none of their guns are sold out of state to avoid federal gun regulations under the interstate commerce clause?

Even if they could prove that, it would be within Congress' power to regulate under the reasoning in Raich, which affirmed that even intrastate activities can be regulated if they substantially affect interstate commerce. If you can establish the substantial affect, then the intrastate-interstate distinction becomes irrelevant.

 

[Polaris]

Well yeah. Easier said than done though. Not a single person I voted for in the last general election was elected. I am starting to feel left out, haha. I am supposed to be able to meet with a few of my Reps in Olympia next month in an attempt to push a bill out of committee and onto the House floor for a vote. Not holding my breath though.

Ranb

No harder than actually saving up the tens of thousands of dollars to buy quality Class 3 instead of using it for something practical like a car or a down payment on a house.

 

[Ranb]

Saving money and deciding what to spend it on is very easy compared to changing the prejudiced minds of legislators. How do you try to convince a Senator that use of a certain gun should not be banned in the state when they believe (for no good reason) that it is banned at the federal level?

I have been spending the last several years just trying to get those in Olympia from the AG down to the House Reps to acknowledge that silencers are legal in the USA and that there is no reason to not allow their use in the state as they are legal to possess. Some of the replies I have received from the government have been downright insulting in their tone. But progress is being made.

Ranb

 

[Ranb]

I think it would go even further than that. Would not an AZ gun manufacturer need to prove that none of their guns are sold out of state to avoid federal gun regulations under the interstate commerce clause?

Federal law places that burden of proof on the persons making the transaction. It is all about the taxes and trafficing across state lines.

Ranb

 

[ponderingturtle]

Federal law places that burden of proof on the persons making the transaction. It is all about the taxes and trafficing across state lines.

Ranb

Are you actually holding that this law would pass muster?

 

[cwalner]

Saving money and deciding what to spend it on is very easy compared to changing the prejudiced minds of legislators. How do you try to convince a Senator that use of a certain gun should not be banned in the state when they believe (for no good reason) that it is banned at the federal level?

I have been spending the last several years just trying to get those in Olympia from the AG down to the House Reps to acknowledge that silencers are legal in the USA and that there is no reason to not allow their use in the state as they are legal to possess. Some of the replies I have received from the government have been downright insulting in their tone. But progress is being made.

Ranb

Well, IIRC, WA is fairly eco-friendly. Try getting them to allow silencers to reduce noise pollution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But guns are clearly articles of interstate commerce, so Congress can regulate them to the extent that the regulations actually regulate the interstate gun market, and so long as the regulations do not violate any other part of the Constitution. Congress has no power under any clause to violate the bill of rights, but they can regulate even intrastate activity if it substantially affects interstate commerce.

The Bill of Rights (specifically the Second Amendment) explicitly denies government the authority to regulate firearms, no mater how they twist and pervert the Commerce Clause.

 

[Freddy]

The Bill of Rights (specifically the Second Amendment) explicitly denies government the authority to regulate firearms, no mater how they twist and pervert the Commerce Clause.

No, it says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It is not self-evident that any and all regulations constitute infringements of the right in question. I must have missed your argument for that claim.

It is evident from the fact that some federal gun regulations have in fact been upheld by the courts that at least some regulations fall short of being infringements. Generally the test is whether the regulation creates an undue burden to the exercise of the right. Congress can regulate guns under the commerce clause so long as the regulation does not unduly burden gun ownership by law abiding citizens. This is not specific to the Second Amendment: even the exercise of First Amendment rights is subject to regulation, so long as the regulations stand up to the relevant degree of scrutiny. Why should the Second Amendment be different in this respect?

In short, case law matters in interpreting the Constitution, and you don't get to ignore case law just because you disagree with it. It is the law. There is not a single judge in the country who would dispute that.

 

[cwalner]

The Bill of Rights (specifically the Second Amendment) explicitly denies government the authority to regulate firearms, no mater how they twist and pervert the Commerce Clause.

Seeing as how the word firearm does not even appear in the 2nd ammendment, I am confused how it says anything explicit about them at all.

It does say the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet somehow laws preventing private citizens from owning tanks or ICBM's seem to pass constitutional muster.

It is perfectly feasable to ban specific types of arms without infringing the general right to bear arms

 

[KingMerv00]

The Bill of Rights (specifically the Second Amendment) explicitly denies government the authority to regulate firearms, no mater how they twist and pervert the Commerce Clause.

Just out of curiousity, do you also think that slander should be protected as a constitutional right?

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

 

[HumanityBlues]

The Bill of Rights (specifically the Second Amendment) explicitly denies government the authority to regulate firearms, no mater how they twist and pervert the Commerce Clause.

Wrong.

 

[Meadmaker]

The Bill of Rights (specifically the Second Amendment) explicitly denies government the authority to regulate firearms, no mater how they twist and pervert the Commerce Clause.

There's a vacancy on the Supreme Court coming up. Maybe you can send in your resume, explain your understanding of things, and set them straight. Seems like with your comprehension of the constitution, you should be a shoo-in for the job. You certainly seem to know it better than those 9 guys who have been running the show for a while. They all seem to think that it doesn't really say that.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just out of curiousity, do you also think that slander should be protected as a constitutional right?

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

Why only mention slander? Fraud, extortion, blackmail, are all also exercises of “Free Speech”. If you truly believe in absolute freedom of speech, without any restriction at all, then you have to believe that I have the right to say to you, “Give me all your money, or else I'll kill you.”

I have to think that the “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” principle applies here. Any right may need to be suppressed, to some extent, when the exercise of that right becomes a violation of someone else's right. You have a right not to be robbed, so my right to threaten to harm you if you don't give me your money has to be sacrificed in this case.


Even so, I think that in the case of slander and libel, the standard, which I think is generally accepted, and which seems reasonable to me, is that government may not exercise “prior restraint”.

I could publicly accuse you—with no valid basis for doing so—of raping young children, kicking puppies, voting Democratic, or whatever, and nobody can stop me. But if, by doing so, I unjustly cause you harm, then you can sue me for slander/libel. This isn't a denial of my right to free speech, but a way that I can be held accountable for the consequences of abusing this right.


You do not have any right that is violated if I happen to own—or even carry in your presence—a firearm. If I am standing next to you with a gun strapped to my hip, this does not cause you any harm, nor violate any of your rights.

 

[The Painter]

This is more about the commerce clause than gun rights. The commerce clause has been so bastardized and twisted that it includes the water in your toilet. The clause needs to be corrected.

BTW why hasn't anyone mentioned Montana? They passed this law a year ago. No federal challenge yet. Maybe the feds know this is bigger than guns. If the court rules in favor of Montana and Arizona it will effect everything. I mean everything. Even the water in your toilet.