Legal basis of gun laws?

[2dogs]

Federal court decision: "A state cannot impose a license, tax or fee on a constitutionally protected right."--Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 [1942]--



Supreme Court decision: The U.S. Supreme Court broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. --Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]--


This was posted at the end of a very long article, so I don't know if it was missed or ignored- but I'm wondering really how most gun laws can stand given the information above- have any gun laws ever been challenged on the basis of these court decisions? Could they be?

It seems to me as a layman that requiring the compliance with umpteen laws to exercise a 2nd Amendment right is in violation of both the 2nd Amendment and the findings of the court as stated above. Am I missing something?

 

[TarpleyG]

Seems lately that the Constitution is simply a symbol of American ideals (to some) and nothing more. Used to be the law of the land. Now they are just making it up as the go.

GT

 

[TallPine]

Didn't you read the fine print at the bottom of the US Constitution that says: "Void where prohibited by law" ???

 

[El Tejon]

Our friend the Commerce Clause--the Big Hammer of Unlimited Government.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

First, no one reads the constitution anymore.

Second it has been held that the 2nd amendment written in the late 1700's applies only to the national guard, which was created in the early 1900's

Third, guns kill children so they are not ok.

Fourth, Some of the founding fathers owned slaves, so they were bad. Bad people cannot have any good ideas.

Fifth, the current Supreme Court does not test constitutionality, they just support their own brand of social change.

Except for slave owners and Nazis, no one is responsible for their individual actions.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Don't forget "reasonable restriction!"

It's reasonable to restrict people from shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

Therefore, it's reasonable to restrict people to bearing only the governmentally approved single shot .22lr longarm with personalization technology in the privacy of their own homes.

 

[RobW]

The totalitarians (formerly known as liberals) call the Constitution a "living document" meaning actually they want it as dead as it can be.

We "untermenschen" don't know what's good for us, we cannot read, or reason, so we are in desperate need for them good people that decide erverything for us and how we have to behave.

And without a lot of bootlickers (considering themselves "elite") it wouldn't be possible to establish an oppressive government. See Joseph Goebbel's "journalists", and Roland Freisler's "volksgerichtshof (peoples court)"

Pat Buchanan gave us 50 years to reach the status of a Banana-Republic.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Am I missing something?

As a matter of fact, you are. You don't have the moral and intellectual blindness it takes to believe the Constitution is a set of irrelevant old-fashioned guidelines that need to be discarded a little at a time now that we've arrived in modern times.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Second it has been held that the 2nd amendment written in the late 1700's applies only to the national guard, which was created in the early 1900's

It hasn't been upheld by the courts. If there was a decision stating the 2A was only for the national guard, guns would be banned today. In the 1934 Miller case, the US supreme court ruled (incorrectly due to poor information) that Miller could be charged with possession of a short barreled shotgun because (incorrectly) the SBS was not an arm used by the military.

The decision clearly means that civilian ownership of military firearms is exactly what the 2A was talking about.

 

[Kinsman]

I wonder how those laws stand, too.
I hear about the 'commerce clause' and 'general welfare' and so on.

In the end, I think that some folks just do what they want....