[W:898]The Right To keep and Bear Arms Is Quite Clear:

[haymarket]

Right. Commerce is the exchange of goods, products, or services. We agree.

So we can clearly state that possessing something is neither the exchange of goods, products, or services.

And can you, for the class, tell us which particular commerce congress may regulate? May it regulate any and all commerce?

The buying of a manufactured gun is clearly part of commerce and under the authority of Congress.

 

[haymarket]

let's see what has already been discussed in regards to the regulation of goods [guns for the purposes of this thread]:











now that your views have been painted into a corner, where anyone with comprehension ability could see that an authority to regulate interstate commerce then also applies to the regulation of guns, you have attempted to pivot into a diversion of questions asking whether mere possession constitutes interstate commerce. and the answer to that question is "no". however, any competent reader already recognizes that interstate commerce, being subjected to the regulation of the trading of goods and services, must then also include the regulation of guns which are a part of that commerce

Exactly. Somebody had to make the gun and sell it and that is indeed commerce between the states.

 

[Beowulf]

The buying of a manufactured gun is clearly part of commerce and under the authority of Congress.

Who said anything about buying. I said that possessing something is neither the exchange of good, products, nor services.

Can you, for the class, tell us whether possessing something is commerce?

 

[haymarket]

Who said anything about buying. I said that possessing something is neither the exchange of good, products, nor services.

Can you, for the class, tell us whether possessing something is commerce?

Somebody made and sold that gun - making it commerce to be regulated. Do you think it was magically born?

 

[Beowulf]

Somebody made and sold that gun - making it commerce to be regulated. Do you think it was magically born?

The sale of the gun may be commerce. And if it is commerce among the several states, then that commerce can certainly be regulated.

However, I'm talking about possessing a gun, not buying or selling one. Congress has no power to regulate the possession of a gun.

 

[Beowulf]

Somebody made and sold that gun - making it commerce to be regulated. Do you think it was magically born?

So when commerce among the several states involves a gun, how would you like that commerce to be regulated?

 

[haymarket]

So when commerce among the several states involves a gun, how would you like that commerce to be regulated?

That is a decision made by the Congress and the states. While I have helped in the writing of some legislation in Michigan, that is not my normal bailiwick as a professional.

 

[Beowulf]

That is a decision made by the Congress and the states. While I have helped in the writing of some legislation in Michigan, that is not my normal bailiwick as a professional.

But when commerce occurs among the several states (including commerce involving a gun), that's what congress may regulate, correct?

You seem very interested in regulating commerce in guns, so I thought you might have some ideas.

 

[haymarket]

But when commerce occurs among the several states (including commerce involving a gun), that's what congress may regulate, correct?

You seem very interested in regulating commerce in guns, so I thought you might have some ideas.

I gave you SEVERAL provisions in the US Constitution which allow regulation of guns.

 

[Beowulf]

I gave you SEVERAL provisions in the US Constitution which allow regulation of guns.

Okay, so are you giving up on the commerce clause now? I like to knock them down one by one.

 

[haymarket]

Okay, so are you giving up on the commerce clause now? I like to knock them down one by one.

The only thing I gave up on you seeing reason. The buying and selling of guns is commerce pure and simple. Any attempt by you to pretend it is not is simply denial of reality. You have not come close to knocking that down.

 

[Beowulf]

The only thing I gave up on you seeing reason. The buying and selling of guns is commerce pure and simple. Any attempt by you to pretend it is not is simply denial of reality. You have not come close to knocking that down.

Okay, so you're not giving up on the commerce clause. Okay.

So when commerce occurs among the states (including commerce in guns), what sort of regulations do you consider necessary?

 

[Napoleon]

The sale of the gun may be commerce. And if it is commerce among the several states, then that commerce can certainly be regulated.

However, I'm talking about possessing a gun, not buying or selling one. Congress has no power to regulate the possession of a gun.

It does under its second amendment authority to regulate the “militia” - which is you even though the originally intended obligation to serve has been disconnected from the right to own.

 

[Beowulf]

It does under its second amendment authority to regulate the “militia” - which is you.

The second amendment grants congress power to regulate the militia?

Let's take a look:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where is the grant of power to regulate the militia?

 

[haymarket]

Okay, so you're not giving up on the commerce clause. Okay.

So when commerce occurs among the states (including commerce in guns), what sort of regulations do you consider necessary?

Again, that is up to the Congress. It is NOT my intent here to use this thread for that off topic purpose.

 

[Beowulf]

Again, that is up to the Congress. It is NOT my intent here to use this thread for that off topic purpose.

Got it. So congress may regulate commerce (including commerce in guns) when it occurs among the states.

So what does that have to do with the power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess?

 

[Napoleon]

The second amendment grants congress power to regulate the militia?

Let's take a look:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where is the grant of power to regulate the militia?

The first 13 words identify why the right to own is granted - pay close attention to “regulated.” The business of regulating the militia belongs to Congress under Article 1. And indeed it did under various acts of legislation - including requirements to own particular firearms based on a citizen’s role in the militia.

 

[haymarket]

Got it. So congress may regulate commerce (including commerce in guns) when it occurs among the states.

So what does that have to do with the power to restrict what the people of the several states may possess?

The guns that people possess are manufactured and are sold in interstate commerce.

The other parts of the Constitution that I cited also apply.

You can review my post 144 and 146 in this thread if you want specific endorsements. Please remember that NONE of them are a silver bullet designed to stand and cure the problem on its own.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The first 13 words identify why the right to own is granted - pay close attention to “regulated.” The business of regulating the militia belongs to Congress under Article 1. And indeed it did under various acts of legislation - including requirements to own particular firearms based on a citizen’s role in the militia.

The 2A does not grant any right - it prevents the government from infringing upon a right of the people. Regulated refers to trained and equipped and, as you noted, applied to arms for military use. Why do so many wish to pretend that "military style" arms are not what the 2A prevents the government from allowing the people to keep (own) and bear (carry)?

The 2A preamble indeed refers to both a militia and a free state, but the right of the people (not limited to militia members) to keep and bear arms is protected from government infringement as SCOTUS rulings have confirmed.

 

[Glitch]

The 2A does not grant any right - it prevents the government from infringing upon a right of the people. Regulated refers to trained and equipped and, as you noted, applied to arms for military use. Why do so many wish to pretend that "military style" arms are not what the 2A prevents the government from allowing the people to keep (own) and bear (carry)?

The 2A preamble indeed refers to both a militia and a free state, but the right of the people (not limited to militia members) to keep and bear arms is protected from government infringement as SCOTUS rulings have confirmed.

What is a "military style" arm? How does it differ from a "civilian style" arm? The last time I checked the Second Amendment it said that we had the right to "keep and bear arms." It doesn't mention anything about the "style" of arms. The only restriction the Second Amendment implies is that the arms must be bearable. Which would seem to rule out any weapon that cannot be carried.

 

[Napoleon]

The 2A does not grant any right - it prevents the government from infringing upon a right of the people. Regulated refers to trained and equipped and, as you noted, applied to arms for military use. Why do so many wish to pretend that "military style" arms are not what the 2A prevents the government from allowing the people to keep (own) and bear (carry)?

The 2A preamble indeed refers to both a militia and a free state, but the right of the people (not limited to militia members) to keep and bear arms is protected from government infringement as SCOTUS rulings have confirmed.

That right only exists because the Constitution says it does in the second amendment. As for a separation between the people and the militia - it is a rather ridiculous interpretation on the part of the Supreme Court since there was no distinction between the people and the militia at the time the Second Amendment was written and for many years after. The very text of the second amendment makes that abundantly clear. Never mind all the legislation involving compulsory military service.But since the Supreme Court has separated the two it has also said that bans which prohibit firearms that have no reasonable legal purpose are constitutional.

 

[Beowulf]

The guns that people possess are manufactured and are sold in interstate commerce.

The other parts of the Constitution that I cited also apply.

You can review my post 144 and 146 in this thread if you want specific endorsements. Please remember that NONE of them are a silver bullet designed to stand and cure the problem on its own.

Okay. And when this commerce occurs among the states (including commerce in guns), are there any particular regulations you would like to be applied?

 

[Glitch]

It is a rather ridiculous interpretation on the part of the Supreme Court since there was no distinction between the people and the militia at the time the Second Amendment was written and for many years after. But since the Supreme Court has separated the two it has also said that bans which prohibit firearms that have no reasonable legal purpose are constitutional.

You are mistaken. As recently as District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Supreme Court held that the "right of the people" refers to all the people, not just the militia:

1. Operative Clause

a. "Right of the People." The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a "right of the people." The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology ("The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through the participation in some corporate body.

"The right of the people" applies to everyone, exactly as ttwtt78640 stated, not just members of a militia.

 

[Napoleon]

You are mistaken. As recently as District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Supreme Court held that the "right of the people" refers to all the people, not just the militia:



"The right of the people" applies to everyone, exactly as ttwtt78640 stated, not just members of a militia.

I know what the Supreme Court has decided. Just pointing out that it isn’t consistent with the text, historical intent, or historical reality. Indeed, why predicate a right on the need for a militia if the two were intended to be separate issues? They effectively created a new right since the militia was replaced with a standing army and national guard and compulsory service went the way of the dodo.

 

[Glitch]

I know what the Supreme Court has decided. Just pointing out that it isn’t consistent with the text or the historical intent or reality. They effectively created a new right since the militia was replaced with a standing army and national guard.

Again you are mistaken. The militia has not been replaced.

Title 10, Chapter 12, Section 246 of the US Code:

Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and​

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.​