Does the Federal government have the authority to address mass shooting incidents?

[J-Bar]

I am not a lawyer. I enjoy learning from the threads in this forum.

Once again the news media is focused on the mass shooting incidents in Ohio and Texas. Once again the incidents have been politicized with many in Washington DC offering opinions about what should be done.

My question is very basic, and likely stupid and ignorant, but I hope I am among friends and would really like to know...

What part of the Constitution gives Congress and/or the President authority to address these incidents at the Federal level? It seems everyone reflexively thinks the “solution” must come from Washington. Are these incidents really within the authority of the Federal government to address?

 

[JFrank]

A bill has to be written and brought forth in the house. Google how a bill becomes a law

 

[J-Bar]

A bill has to be written and brought forth in the house. Google how a bill becomes a law

Not my question.

The Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress and the President; national defense, common currency, etc. Under which enumerated power or authority can the Federal government legislatively address criminal acts perpetrated by individuals?

 

[JFrank]

You tell me

 

[newfalguy101]

Thats kinda their job, actually.

 

[AlexanderA]

"Hate crimes" and "terroristic acts" have been defined as federal crimes by statute. That brings in the FBI as the lead investigative agency, and gives jurisdiction to federal courts. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction. A defendant can be tried for murder, for example, in state court, and also for a hate crime in federal court, without having double jeopardy apply. These are separate crimes arising out of the same incident.

 

[newfalguy101]

For whatever its worth, the gov is incapable of "solving" this issue, its not a law issue, its a breakdown in society issue

 

[SharpDog]

The common issues of murder, which firearms are allowed, etc are States issues. The US gov't can provide guidelines and also administers inter-state issues such as transporting firearms over state lines, kidnapping, bank robbery, etc. There is some constitutional law that restricts the availability of certain classes of firearms but by and large this is left to the states. The US government provides support for state Law Enforcement in the form of NICS, national databases, FBI Labs, etc. In fact, the Red Flag Law proposed today in Congress takes the form of monetary incentives to states to enact such laws. The federal gov't also comes in if there is a hate crime.

 

[JFrank]

For whatever its worth, the gov is incapable of "solving" this issue, its not a law issue, its a breakdown in society issue

Unwilling is my term for it’

 

[J-Bar]

So, you aren't asking a question, are you? A passive aggressive stratagem to allow you to signa how true to the principles of RKBA you are doesn't really have a place here. Try Facebook.

Government, at any level, will do whatever it thinks it can get away with.

Was this addressed to me or another person in the thread?

If aimed at me. I’m not trying to signal anything.

If we don’t want government at any level to do whatever it thinks it can get away with, shouldn’t we start by identifying the Constitutional limits of that authority?

I’m untrained and admittedly ignorant of the fine points of Constitutional law. My question may reflect that ignorance, but it was an honest one.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I thought the OP was a legitimate question. I teach US Government, and it never ceases to amaze me how so many people, students and adults, actually do not know how our government works, err, is supposed to work.

THE OP mentioned "enumerated powers," which grant specific authority to branches of the federal government. However, there are also "implied powers," which are implicit in the enumerated powers. For example, The government is enumerated the power to raise a military, therefore, it is "implied" that the government also has the power to draft citizens into that military.

The other thing to consider is Congress' power to regulate interstate trade. Anything shipped between state lie can be regulated by Congress. Almost everything gun related is shipped between states and, subsequently, under the purview of Congress. (This is the same argument that upheld most of the Obamacare laws.)

In regards to hate crimes (crimes based on protected status-race, religion, etc), these are based in large part in the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the various 1960s era Federal equal rights/ voting rights, fair housing/ etc etc acts. (All of which is rooted i the 14th amendment.) As such hate crimes, to some extent, are also under the purview of Congress.

So, ultimately, yes, the Federal government has some authority in this matter. But as was stated earlier, the government (any government at any level) will try do whatever it can get away with. This is why the Constitution was written to begin with; it binds the government and regulates the government's relationship with its citizens-not the other way around.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Obviously going nowhere.