Ammo For Sale

« « SIG Sauer P320 X-Five Pistol | Home | Gun Porn » »

And the other pro-gun bill

National reciprocity and the constitutional case for it. Sebastian takes a look at three strong arguments for it. The current system, however, doesn’t really require anything to be constitutional. Using it to our advantage as our opponents certainly would has a certain amount of appeal.

7 Responses to “And the other pro-gun bill”

  1. Jim W Says:

    The one thing I ended up learning from law school and law practice was that The Law isn’t a logically consistent system (like a computer program might be) but is in fact drenched in politics and the personal views of judges. Even before the left politicized the judiciary (in the 40s? 60s? 80s? where was the turning point?), judges were playing dishonest games. Scott v Sanford anyone?

    The legal system pretends to aspire to being a system in which one can impartially apply fact patterns to well understood laws and get predictable and reasonable results, but the reality is not really anything like this. The judiciary is just another political branch and constitutional law is just another tool with which political winners punish political losers. I used to believe in the constitution and in the rule of law but Obama proved that you can shit on the constitution and the press won’t say a word. They’ll cheer.

    In conclusion, ram through national reciprocity, let people walk CA streets with FL out of state permits, let the Bloombergs and Feinsteins of the world choke on a giant bag of dicks. We owe them no more philosophical explanation or constitutional justification than they would have given us if they could have rammed through god knows what after Sandy Hook in 2012.

  2. DocMerlin Says:

    It isn’t unconstitutional, it is under Congress’s Article 1 power to arm the militia.
    “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    – It falls under organizing (as a defense in depth), disciplining (Providing for the rules that governing them etc) and arming (in this case by allowing them to provide their own arms, a method of arming that has historical basis).
    – It leaves to the states to provide for training (each state determines how the training happens), according to the discipline that congress sets, which in this case the discipline is the carry.

  3. Jim W Says:

    The problem with every argument for it being constitutional or unconstitutional is that there is an exception somewhere in the case law that says every possible justification could go one way or the other. And even when it isn’t they can make stuff up.

    Anyone who takes this stuff as more than pure politics after they preserved the ACA by saying that it means the opposite of what it says is naive.

  4. Ron W Says:

    @DocMerlin, good citation! Notice that the Federal Government has NO delegated power over arms of the militia (armed citizenry) except those as “MAY BE EMPLOYED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES.” Therefore ALL Federal gun laws pertaining to the People are illegal.

  5. matt Says:

    I don’t know that the militia power has much relevance to carry, but it is entirely within the federal power to provide for arming the militia to declare that the AR-15-pattern rifle is the standard weapon of the U.S. militia and to declare state laws restricting them void.

    If we’re going for impossible dreams, that is.

  6. Blounttruth Says:

    Very insightful and honest post Jim W., there are few lawyers that will be honest with the laymen about courtroom truths today for fear of reprisal.

    For those that have studied case law in areas that have not been overturned via Shepard’s citation proves what you say is unfortunately true.
    If all things were cut and dried constitutionally, then Shuttelsworth Vs. Alabama would provide enough to declare no need for permit to exercise a constitutional right, and ignore the fee for such without fear of reprisal.

    In the same breath any true study of Marburry Vs. Madison shows clearly the politics played at the Supreme Court level, and their ruling based on such. The resulting opinion that anything repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law is ignored today, even though not one case to my knowledge has ever overturned the findings in a for profit court that abandoned the rule of law long ago for dollars and no sense.

    So politicized that Supreme Court Justice Roberts physically re-wrote sections of Obama care or the ACA to make it legal, which of course is not a role of the Supreme Court, but is indicative of the what our “legal” system has become, and how effective the NSA can be when they can cause a Justice to act in this manner.

  7. Ron W Says:

    @matt, the “militia power” delegated to the Federal Government is constrained to “such part of the militia” which is EMPLOYED in its service. Otherwise, the greater part of the militia, the armed citizenry, i.e., the People, has a right to bear arms, “bear” means “carry” as used in the context of the 2nd Amendment sentence declaring “the right of the people.”