Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Scott, the supremacy clause, very clearly limits what states can do. States may not pass a law which violates the US Constitution.

I get what detbuch is saying about a list of enumerated powers to the feds, and all else goes to the states. I'm not disputing that.

All I am saying, is that there are limits to the freedoms in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional.

Oh well, I did write this reply to the above post before I saw the exchange between you and Scott. I'll go ahead and post it.

I just noticed this post by you. As an addendum to the above lengthier posts, especially the succinct ones by ReelinRod, I'd like to clear up what appears to me to be a misunderstanding about the Supremacy clause.

The Supremacy clause also, and more so, limits the federal government's supreme power to remaining within the few granted parameters which the Constitution prescribes.

The notion that the clause's limiting effect on states due to the relatively small scope of power given to the central government somehow means that there is a general notion of limitation on freedoms in the Bill of Rights, or to any of the vast residuum of other rights, ergo that the federal government can use that notion to abridge rights outside of its scope of constitutional power is nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government a general power to create laws that abridge freedoms neither in the Bill of Rights, nor among all the inherent rights not listed in The Bill. You are missing that point. You seem to be saying that the Clause's limitations on states from trespassing federal power creates an aura of fallibility in the idea of unalienable rights which then gives the federal government a claim on creating laws that the Constitution forbids it to do. That is exactly the type of constitutional construction Progressives depend on to vitiate the Constitution.

THERE IS NO GENERAL LIMITATION ON CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. Whatever limitations there might be would specifically reside in the power of the states and their citizens. This power cannot by analogy be transferred to the federal government. The Supremacy Clause, the Constitution, do not permit that. If it did, the whole Constitution would be null and void. If it did, it would mean that the federal government could assume all power, unlimited power, because there would be an assumed limit to rights, and it could, as you say, under some notion such as public safety or any other concoction claim the necessity of passing laws because rights, after all, have limitations.

Again, your notion is the perfect excuse for Progressives to pretend they are abiding by the Constitution while they are actually destroying it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The notion that the clause's limiting effect on states due to the relatively small scope of power given to the central government somehow means that there is a general notion of limitation on freedoms in the Bill of Rights, or to any of the vast residuum of other rights, ergo that the federal government can use that notion to abridge rights outside of its scope of constitutional power is nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government a general power to create laws that abridge freedoms neither in the Bill of Rights, nor among all the inherent rights not listed in The Bill. You are missing that point. .

I'm not missing that point. I am saying that the ability of states to limit gun rights, is clearly subject to the supremacy clause. I cited a recent case where a federal judge struck down a gun ban in DC...if the feds had no authority to subject such state laws to the supremacy clause, the judge would have refused to hear the case. The feds didn't create a law, they struck down a state law that violated the US constitution. You said the feds have no authority to regulate gun restrictions. The court case I posted, seems to indicate otherwise.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not missing that point. I am saying that the ability of states to limit gun rights, is clearly subject to the supremacy clause. I cited a recent case where a federal judge struck down a gun ban in DC...if the feds had no authority to subject such state laws to the supremacy clause, the judge would have refused to hear the case. The feds didn't create a law, they struck down a state law that violated the US constitution. You said the feds have no authority to regulate gun restrictions. The court case I posted, seems to indicate otherwise.

I said: "The Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government a general power to create laws that abridge freedoms neither in the Bill of Rights, nor among all the inherent rights not listed in The Bill."

The DC law was not struck down by a law created by the federal government. The federal government did not write the Constitution. The federal government did not write the Supremacy Clause. The several States did. The DC law was struck down on the basis of a law that the states wrote--the Constitution. ReelinRod explained very well why the DC law was struck down.

BTW, not that it matters in terms of what is being discussed, do you have some documentation that says Madison or Jefferson actually had a hand in drafting the Univ. of VA ban? What little I've read merely says they attended the meeting. One source specifically said that there is nothing actually linking Madison or Jefferson to the writing of the draft.