AWB unconstitutional ?

[armedpolak]

So the constitution states that congres shall pass no law against the bill of rights, right ??? How did the congres then, passed the 1994 AWB ??? Which part of "keep and bear" arms is unclear to people ??? How did it even go through ???

I understand state legislation can do whatever about guns, but ban on a federal level should have been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court, no ?!?!?

 

[AK103K]

Ask the NRA.

TPTB stopped worrying about that pesky document long ago. Between the schools and the nightly news, they just tell everyone what to think, and whats expected of them.


If you really want to stir up trouble, knock out football on cable TV and interrupt the flow of beer, then you might get a rise out of the masses.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I think it's because of that stupid "sporting purposes" junk they threw into the GCA of 1968, which was definitely unconstitutional. They used to media to branwash Joe Public into believing that the 2nd amendment is about hunting. :banghead:

 

[wdlsguy]

Because they had gotten away with banning foreign-made "assault weapons" prior to 1994.

Because they had gotten away with banning domestically-made machineguns in 1986.

Because they had gotten away with banning foreign-made machineguns in 1968.

Because they had gotten away with taxing machineguns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, et cetera in 1934.

 

[AJ Dual]

The trick is to get a court case that has the right issues all the way up to the Supreme Court (we've had them, and will again...) AND have the various circuit courts in conflict (9th vs. the 5th, so check...) AND wait for a conservative/constructionist majority that will rule correctly and incorporate the Second Amendment correctly under the 14th Amendment and clarify it's an individual right.

Getting all three components together into one case could (and is) take(ing) decades.

Clarence Thomas has indicated some willingness to rule on an individual interpretation over 2A issues. Alito and Scalia probably would too, the others are either too lefty or moderate to help us on such a devisive issue yet.

If Bush gets one more "good" constructionist appointee onto the court, then I think you'll see the NRA making some moves and backing quite a few interesting court cases.

Even then each and every unconstitutional gun law would have to be brought to court individualy, so getting those stricken would still take several years.

So even such a "whole enchilada" 2A SCOTUS decision wouldn't allow us to all go put suppressors on our guns, or drill the "third hole" in our AR's and AK's the next morning.

 

[Father Knows Best]

So the constitution states that congres shall pass no law against the bill of rights, right ??? How did the congres then, passed the 1994 AWB ??? Which part of "keep and bear" arms is unclear to people ??? How did it even go through ???

Congress and the President stopped being concerned long ago with whether or not a particular bill is Constitutional. They just put in the standard pretextual language about impacts on Interstate Commerca yadda yadda yadda, and leave it to the courts to decide whether or not the law passes Constitutional muster. The only way to answer the question with any finality would be for someone to be convicted of violating the law, and then challenge the conviction on the basis that the law violates the 2nd Amendment. Then, they would have to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which means asking the Supreme Court to please hear the case. SCOTUS takes only the cases it wants to take (with a few narrow exceptions that aren't applicable here), and SCOTUS has shown no interest for many, many decades in taking cases concerning the 2nd Amendment. Since SCOTUS is not likely to ever hear a Constitutional challenge to a law on 2nd Amendment grounds, the net result is that Congress and the President can pretty much ignore the 2nd Amendment and do whatever they want.

I understand state legislation can do whatever about guns, but ban on a federal level should have been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court, no ?!?!?

Your understanding is incorrect. The 2nd Amendment is binding on the states, just as it is on the Federal government. While some Amendments in the Bill of Rights state "Congress shall make no law....", the 2nd is not written in that way. Rather, it says that "the right of the people ... shall not be infringed." Just in case there was any doubt, SCOTUS ruled in 1925 that the Fourteenth Amendment made certain provisions of the Bill of Rights binding on the states, also, and it is now generally accepted that the entirety of the Bill of Rights acts as a restriction on all law in the U.S., whether federal, state or local.

 

[distortion9]

Ask the NRA.

TPTB stopped worrying about that pesky document long ago. Between the schools and the nightly news, they just tell everyone what to think, and whats expected of them.


If you really want to stir up trouble, knock out football on cable TV and interrupt the flow of beer, then you might get a rise out of the masses.

Very sad but, your post rings true....Excellent post.

 

[wdlsguy]

The only way to answer the question with any finality would be for someone to be convicted of violating the law, and then challenge the conviction on the basis that the law violates the 2nd Amendment.

Thompson-Center challenged BATFE in court by registering a Contender carbine kit as a short-barreled rifle (paying the $200 tax) and then suing for a tax refund. The case went all the way to the SCOTUS and Thompson-Center won. Can't we come up with a clever strategy that doesn't involve someone being arrested?

 

[El Tejon]

1. The United States Congress cares not one whit about the Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights.

2. The states are to follow the Bill of Rights via the Fourteenth Amendment which brought the BoR to the states after the Civil War (the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a failure in helping Blacks in the South). States, cities, counties can no more violate your rights than can Congress.

3. The Supreme Court will never, ever hear a Second Amenment case. To do so is to risk a governmental crisis.

BTW, prior to the existence of the 14th Amendment many commentators to the BoR believed that the 2nd Amendment applied to the federal govervnment and the states.

 

[Nathan Williams]

Because the Constitution, and its ammendments no longer matter anymore to your government or most of its subjects.....ugh mean citizens. The 2nd has taken the worst beating by far, but the 1st, and 4th have been stripped out lately too. Wht cant we get the ACLU on our side. Those clowns will defend NAMBLA, and terroist why not us.

 

[wdlsguy]

Wht cant we get the ACLU on our side.

We need to adopt their tactics. They are very good at accomplishing through the courts what they cannot accomplish through the legislatures.

 

[ProguninTN]

AWB

wdlsguy had it right. Because they got away with it many times. wdlsguy, are you suggesting we find lawsuit happy attorneys or maybe just a few extra Stephen Halbrooks ?

 

[wdlsguy]

I don't know what the answer is, but if the ACLU had been a pro 2nd amendment organization, they would have found a way to challenge the 1994 AWB in court before it even went into effect.

Kudos to Stephen Halbrooks for his victory by the way.

 

[unspellable]

Not just the 2A

It's not just the 2A. If you really stop and think about it, 85% of everything the federal government does is uncostitutional.

Meanwhile according to the constitution the federal government's PRIMARY function is to secure the borders. Go sit next to the Mexican border while you do your thinking.

 

[david_the_greek]

so many things the federal government is doing scares (or is concerns the right word) the living daylights out of me. I'm fairly young and it upsets me that so many of my peers don't understand why they need to protect all their rights and question their government. I know I'm buying an ar15 as soon as I have alittle more cash on hand. mine as well get it just incase something bad happens (and by just incase I mean probably)

 

[noresttill]

Did the AWB go to the supreme court? I dont recall.

The supreme court doesnt "police" laws. They only wait for something to come before them, then rule. There could pass a law that contradicts the ENTIRE bor, but the SCOTUS would have to wait.

 

[Geno]

wdlsguy +1

Accurate description. Piece by piece taken away from the sheeple.

Doc2005

 

[Tory]

RTFD

So the constitution states that congres [sic] shall pass no law against the bill of rights, right ???

WRONG. On so many levels, I wonder if you have even read the document you purport to cite.

First, the Bill of Rights is PART of the Constitution.

Second, the phrase, "Congress shall pass no law" is not even part of the Second Amendment.

Hint: Try reading the First Amendment...

And blaming the NRA is assinine, as it had defeated an earlier attempt and worked to get the 10-year sunset included.

 

[Soybomb]

Wht cant we get the ACLU on our side. Those clowns will defend NAMBLA, and terroist why not us.

Personally I'm glad the ACLU works on the other 9 amendments that make up the bill of rights. You'd think the much larger NRA could handle taking care of just 1 of them. Perhaps instead of bashing the guys that stand up for the rest of your rights it would be better focused on fixing our biggest lobbying group.

 

[Manedwolf]

We've had the Constitution being nudged out from under us since Income Tax came to be. Of course it's unconstitutional, but it doesn't matter to the powers that be or to most of the people.

 

[gego]

The Bill of Rights means squat if all branches of government conspire to violate rights.

 

[Jim K]

Simple. The courts are allowed to interpret the Constitution. You aren't. All the rants in the world won't change anything.

BTW, I have found over the years that those who scream and rage the loudest about the Second Amendment are those who don't register, don't vote, won't support pro-gun candidates with money or time, and won't even write a letter opposing bad legislation or supporting good proposals.

My feeling is that if you won't get off your ass, shut your mouth.

Jim

 

[unspellable]

Screaming and raging

<< BTW, I have found over the years that those who scream and rage the loudest about the Second Amendment are those who don't register, don't vote, won't support pro-gun candidates with money or time, and won't even write a letter opposing bad legislation or supporting good proposals. >>

I've done all of the above. I thought I was among those screaming and raging the loudest, but maybe not. Will you please explain this to my wife?

 

[BobTheTomato]

The actual powers of the US goverment are very limited as defined by the US Constitution. Most of what is done is under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. What do you think most of them care about The Bill of Rights or election time?

 

[gaweidert]

A person in New York State sued last year so he could own a fully automatic weapon. Said it was his constitutional right ot own one. He lost the suit. One of the judges statements was that the constitution does not guarantee individual rights. If this is true, he just shot down just about every ruling of the supreme court in the last 50 years.