NRA

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

There are two constitutional problems to consider in regards to the SCOTUS not striking down the 1994 ban. First, the NRA did not challenge the law on Second Amendment grounds. It feared, rightly or wrongly, that the Court would be inimical on those grounds. So the direct constitutional Second Ammendment restriction on the Federal Government to impose such a ban was not tested. Although, one of the provisions, which required state law enforcement to implement the Federal requirement to do the background checks was struck down on the grounds that the Federal Gvt. cannot compel the states to enforce its policies. Second the rest of the act was upheld under the infamous precedent created by the FDR Court that applies the Commerce Clause to INTRAstate commerce rather than being restricted to the power to "regulate" INTERstate commerce.

But that doesn't answer my question. If a total ban is unconstitutional, why is a partial ban not unconstitutional? What part of the ban is Constitutional? If the Commerce Clause can be stretched to include any commerce whatsoever, as it has been construed since FDR, how would a total ban be unconstitutional? Or, for that matter, since just about anything we do is in some way related to commerce, how would a Federal ban on anything else be unconstitutional. So, by interpreting the Commerce Clause in this way, which obviously renders the Constitution moot, we will be allowed to do and buy or sell those things that the Federal Government deems necessary or harmless, and we will be restricted to those rights that the government grants us rather than it being restricted to those rights we have granted to it. And if you think that serious gun control advocates just want to restrict scary looking guns, or only those with the capacity to kill more people quickly, you haven't been paying attention.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

The debate will go along the lines that have been drawn in this thread. So you are already seeing the debate here. The things being said here are as "reasonable" as the debate will get. And, probably, emotional arguments and "numbers" arguments will prevail at least to some degree, and we will get a "reasonable" bill passed. Whether or not it will actually be constitutional will be irrelevant. The common view that we must wait for SCOTUS debate to discover constitutionality absolves us from understanding the Constitution ourselves. It was written for us, not for the government except to give it bounds that it was not to trespass. It was written by people like us--farmers, mechanics, artisans, shopkeepers, as well as scholars and lawyers--for us. It was an improbable gift that might never be offered again. It was originally simply and directly put, but was made incomprehensible by successions of "interpretation" and bad case law so that only a small portion of it now is even given so-called "strict scrutiny," the rest being handed over to the Federal Government branches to say what it means. And that small portion given strict consideration is what's left of the bill of rights. And those are being worked on by politicians and judges--as attested to by increasing attempts at "gun control" as well as speech, property, and religious restrictions, against us rather than reserving them as the people's rights.

When you say that you wouldn't support any ban that wasn't constitutional, that implies you have an understanding of what is constitutional. If so, why must you wait for SCOTUS decisions, which have already muddied the Constitution into a swamp of judicial and congressional and executive whim, to find out?