The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 16, 2013, 11:33 AM   #151
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,232
UBC can be argued here all day and night, but the gov is still going to to try to add more and more restrictions until they succeed in eliminating your 2nd amendment right all together. Their goal is to disarm the citizenry.
rebs is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 11:33 AM   #152
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,813
In my area the NICS check is going to average about 7% of the price of used guns sold assuming average price is about $400. FOr individuals with a lower income buying cheaper guns it will be more like 15%. In my exchanges were several Mosin Nagants and Nagant 1895 Revolvers. FOr those firearms it would have added almost 50% to the cost of transfer.

For a law, that like the initial NICs check, actually accomplishes NOTHING. If cartels can import MILLIONS of pounds of drugs across the Southern border, what in the world is going to stop them from bringing in guns to sell to the criminal organizations they already supply with drugs? they already do business in countries where full auto weapons are widely available as there is a large overlap with countries manufacturing drugs. THe distribution network is set-up from country of origin to end user.
These laws have never worked and will not work now. At best they will limit gun ownership to organized crime empowering them to terrorize law abiding citizens as was done in Chicago and New York in the past.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 11:40 AM   #153
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
While I don't agree with the tone of his argument either, there's a possible hole in your logic as well here.
Jim, that strikes me as a sound analysis. Felons are not the only prohibited persons.

Let us assume that every single last one of those 120,000 applicants were correctly denied. Each of those 120,000 applicants was dealing with the federal licensee, and the federal government regulates those licensees and their transfers.

I am not a federal licensee. My civil rights should not evaporate simply because someone thinks they have a better idea.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 11:48 AM   #154
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
We lost the commerce clause argument a long time ago.

The fact remains that if a firearm constructed in New York uses metal mined in Nevada, and is sold in Iowa, it's in interstate commerce.

If you, yourself make in Oklahoma, with aluminum you mined yourself and carry it concealed to your sister's brother-in-law's cousins family BBQ 60 miles south in Texas, it's interstate commerce.

Whether you buy from a store in Tallahassee or your neighbor in Montpelier, it's a private transaction.

And if the firearm is in interstate trade, the Feds have the authority to regulate it.
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 11:51 AM   #155
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
csmsss, maybe I was thinking about Andrew Jackson forcing the Cherokee onto the Trail of Tears. Ask any Native American, they can tell you the US government never overreaches, nor reneges on promises about future behavior.

JimDandy, sure, some probably fall into those categories. The question is, how many? And of those, how many truly should have been in those categories, as opposed to just being lumped in there due to outdated records or improper rulings?

Kochman, on your idea of battered women being smarter, and leaving abusive relationships sooner...

Him: If you only acted like you should, this would not happen
Her: I am trying. What am I doing wrong?

Him: You know!
Her: No, I don't, how should I act?

Him: I am sorry, I love you, I will never do that again.
Her: Really? I hope that is true.

Him: I had to hit you, you just kept nagging!
Her: How can I make you happy?

Now, go back and substitute "Gun Controllers" for him, and "Gun Owners" for her, and tell me about learning to leave the situation, Kochman.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 11:52 AM   #156
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
We've lost some very disheartening Commerce Clause battles. We need to keep fighting. It is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most abused power in the entire COTUS.

Just like we've lost some very disheartening RKBA battle, but we kept fighting and we are now on the verge of significant break-throughs.

The Commerce Clause is not an acceptable argument for background checks and never will be. We must fight.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 11:56 AM   #157
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
Quote:
The Commerce Clause is not an acceptable argument for background checks and never will be. We must fight.
I'm going to assume you believe "prohibited persons" should not, and do not have a right to keep and bear arms?

Given the-

Right to travel
general purpose of the Feds to mediate, broker, and buffer the sovereign states in our dual sovereignty system

How do you propose the State of Hawaii know if the resident of Maine know is a prohibited person without background checks?
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:03 PM   #158
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Though my list of "prohibited persons" would be much shorter than current law, but yes.

However, it is a state issue. The states have no trouble cooperating on driver's licenses/registrations and they'd have no trouble cooperating here either, should they so choose.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:07 PM   #159
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
I'm going to assume you believe "prohibited persons" should not, and do not have a right to keep and bear arms?
That is a result of due process, not the commerce clause.

Quote:
And if the firearm is in interstate trade, the Feds have the authority to regulate it.
Within limits. The federal government can regulate the process by which the metal is treated on environmental grounds, they can regulate the wages and pensions and medical benefits of the people who manufacture the arms.

The federal government is not granted the plenary authority under the Constitution to regulate individual exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Newspapers are in interstate commerce. The federal government has authority to regulate newspapers within limits. They can regulate the processes by which paper is manufactured, and they can regulate the wages and pensions and medical benefits of the people who make the paper and print it.

The federal government is not granted the plenary authority under the Constitution to regulate individual exercise of the right of free speech.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:09 PM   #160
gaseousclay
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 869
Quote:
I'm going to pre-empt this with some caveats.
1) I've been around firearms all my life
2) I was military, now work for LE
3) I own and will always
4) I am not a democrat, or progressive, I'm an unaffiliated independent who thinks both parties are FUBAR

However, I've been a little disturbed by some people refusing any way shape or form of background checks. Personally, I like selling to someone I KNOW has been at least minimally vetted. The system is far from perfect, granted, but it is a much better system than saying something like you can sniff out a bad guy during your 5 minute meeting with cash in hand and deny the sale based on your gut.

I personally believe that, without any associated government record keeping, continued use of 4473 (and prosecution of liars on the form) is a good thing. It is responsible gun ownership... how I was raised.

To sell to someone without this, in my opinion, is a behavior that should be checked. You simply cannot know if the person is a sociopath.

Force them to go to the black market, which they will always be able too... but when they do, and they go kill people, and it comes back that the gun wasn't legally purchased, it helps our cause... because the media can't say, "look how easy it is to buy guns!".

Lanza actually WAS stopped by gun control. He tried to buy in CT two days before the massacre, and was turned down.
The problem? His mother was an irresponsible creature who left guns within easy reach of an autistic kid (basically Asperger's, which is a form of Autism) with other serious problems who was obsessed with guns, violent games, and his being turned down for military service. Not good.

In 2002-2003, over 120k form 4473s led to rejection. This is a good thing. The DoJ only prosecuted less than 1% of them, however, which is a bad thing. At a minimum, we know some of those people went on to get guns, though they shouldn't have them... but, wasn't it good that all of them didn't get them? Can we work on the system and make it good, so less killings are likely, which will create better statistics to boost our argument for future occurences?

I think the knee-jerk "no compromise" position is a classic case of cutting off one's nose despite one's face.
completely agree. I don't equate 'doing the right thing' as a restriction. I hate the idea that if I were to sell a gun to someone in a private transaction that person could turn around and use it in a crime. the notion that, "well, he seemed like a nice guy in person," doesn't cut it.
gaseousclay is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:11 PM   #161
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
I find it amazing that people are throwing out the Preamble to the COTUS.
Picking and choosing is hardly a solid way to debate... you can't just pick and choose the parts of the COTUS you like, folks.
If you think the Preamble is irrelevant to the Constituion, then you're really off the mark.
Review the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preambl...s_Constitution

Most of the article is regarding its judicial relevance.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:14 PM   #162
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Oh, and a firearm that's being sold by a dealer in NY to a person in NY is not involved in "interstate commerce".

It WAS involved in interstate commerce when it came from the distributor in GA to the dealer in NY and the national government could constitutionally create a law that says "Firearms in transit from one state to another must be stored such that blah blah blah..."

That would be "regulating interstate commerce".

Once it's IN state and the commerce is IN state, it is not, by the very definition of the word, INTERstate commerce.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:18 PM   #163
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
kochman,

from your own link:

Quote:
On the other hand, courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution.
The Preamble does not grant powers. Never has, never will. Law can not be based on the preamble. The power must be enumerated elsewhere.

What you're arguing is, in fact, the opposite of elsewhere enumerated powers. The 2A specifically PROHIBITS national level regulation of firearms but you want to use the Preamble to override that SPECIFIC prohibition.

Sorry sir, it just doesn't work that way.

You can't have a forgone conclusion and then search for justification all the while ignoring the specific and straight-forward, plain language prohibition against your goal.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:19 PM   #164
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
I find it amazing that people are throwing out the Preamble to the COTUS.
Picking and choosing is hardly a solid way to debate... you can't just pick and choose the parts of the COTUS you like, folks.
If you think the Preamble is irrelevant to the Constituion, then you're really off the mark.
Review the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preambl...s_Constitution

Most of the article is regarding its judicial relevance.
__________________
I don't agree with you, but you were doing a decent job in debating until the preamble deal. Did you read the link you posted ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
The Preamble serves solely as an introduction, and does not assign powers to the federal government,[1] nor does it provide specific limitations on government action. Due to the Preamble's limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication,[2] except as regards frivolous litigation.
Were I you I would stick with stretching the heck out of the Commerce Clause


***edit*** sorry for the dup, Brian bet me to it****
overhead is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:22 PM   #165
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman, arguing against application of "...shall not be infringed.."
I find it amazing that people are throwing out the Preamble to the COTUS.
Picking and choosing is hardly a solid way to debate... you can't just pick and choose the parts of the COTUS you like, folks.
No one threw out the preamble. They disputed your assertion that it is good authority for your proposal. You have been invited to reproduce authority that applies the preamble as you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
OK, prove the undue burden.
As a preliminary matter, you have not demonstrated let alone proven the appropriate burden imposed by your proposal. Merely shifting the burden of proof does not alter the topography of the argument.

That said, circumstances in which the burden involved is undue are not difficult to explain.

The right described by the Second Amendment is a fundamental right. In order to abridge a fundamental right a law should be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.

Imposing criminal liability on every individual everywhere who otherwise legally transfers a firearm, the transfer by which the right described in the Second Amendment is exercised, imposes a criminal liability on the exercise a valid constitutional right. The proposal is not narrowly tailored; on the contrary it is so broad that the word universal is the common description for its scope.

Moreover, the federal government has no compelling governmental interest in running a background check on me, an individual entitled to my full complement of civil rights, before I am entitled to exercise that right.

If you doubt that, contemplate whether your proposal would work if applied to the right to vote, also a fundamental right. What is the result of your contemplation on that point?
The pages can pile up fairly quickly, but above you have received a response to your request to demonstrate the undue quality of the burden imposed.

Last edited by zukiphile; April 17, 2013 at 08:07 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:24 PM   #166
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
The Preamble is the basis of many aspects of our society... like public school, for example.
Again, those throwing out the preamble, you've lost me.
There were specific court cases listed. Someone said, show me one court case, so I did.

My point, the preamble isn't irrelevant and it has been used in judicial review.
Anything beyond that statement I can't necessarily stand behind.

Now...

@Mleake
Quote:
Kochman,

I am beginning to find you not just wrong, but offensive.

First, you claim that most people who oppose UBCs probably know they should be prohibited persons... Personally, I am a retired Naval Aviator, still work in a job which requires an active clearance, and have no worries about my ability to pass a check. I do think that could change if the government followed the lead of the UK or Australia, and I would rather not enable that.

Spats, whom you treat with veiled insults, is not likely prohibited either, due to a reason that leads to my second problem with you - he is a city attorney. So here is the second problem - you beat us over the head with your "it's all in the Preamble!" business, and act as though we are stupid when we ask when the Preamble has been accepted as case law. Yet some of those "stupid" people you denigrate are lawyers. What is your legal background?

My third problem with you is that you still have not addressed the volume of false positives, though you imply they are minimal. Yet the info you cited claimed 45,000 felons... so if 120,000 were stopped, that means 75,000 were non-felons. To you, this may be trivial...

So, you might try toning yourself down, behaving more respectfully, and actually answering fact-based questions. Or, you could just start to lose the audience when your bag of tricks annoys enough of them.
How does that change the point of what I said? You and Spats aren't "most". I don't think responsible gun owners refuse to have background checks.

I think, and if this insults you that's unfortunate because it isn't the point, but I stand by this statement because I genuinely believe it to be morally correct...
If you sell guns to unknown people, without a check, in this day and age, you are an irresponsible gun owner.
I don't care what you used to do for work, what you do now, if you go to church every day, etc... if you're selling guns to unknown people based on your whim, it is irresponsible. You aren't the issue. The unknown nature of the potential purchaser is the issue.

You find that offensive, that's your prerogative.
I find it offensive that some folks believe they are so special they shouldn't have to worry about society and the general safety of the people around them.

45,000 felons. The other rejections stemmed from other reasons they shouldn't have guns. Why do I have to repeat what the article already says?
Since that is being asked, I will post the article's numbers so they aren't overlooked.
Those other reasons are listed as:
Felony, Domestic Violence, Drug Addict, Fugitive, Mentally Ill, and "Other" (defined as "Other" includes aliens, persons dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces, persons who have renounced their citizenship, and persons who are prohibited by a state from possessing a firearm.)
That means... they may not have been felons, but they were adjudicated away for a number of reasons. Granted, I would prefer we reduce what is considered a "felon", etc, but until that happens...

And if you're going to advise someone to tone it down, maybe do it without your own uncalled for vitriole.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:26 PM   #167
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Kochman, see Brian Pfleuger's post re: your Preamble link.

Meanwhile, you say picking and choosing is no way to debate, yet you dislike my cars points because, as you put it, cars have other uses and are nothing like firearms, which are designed to launch a projectile at lethal speeds.

Of course, firearms can be used (and are used) for hunting, target shooting, and sporting competitions, as well as for lethal purposes. And cars (and motorcycles), while they can carry people or goods, virtually ALWAYS have lethal potential, every single time they are used. Even at low speeds, they run over kids in driveways, and kill them.

So you can say "apples and oranges" all you like, but IMO, lethal is lethal. The only difference, again IMO, is that firearms are Constitutionally protected, whereas automobiles are not. If anything, firearms should be LESS regulated than automobiles, and until 1968, that was so.

I think, when you say "don't pick and choose," you mean that in a one-sided way.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:28 PM   #168
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
And people have to get licenses to own cars, and register their ownership.

I'm not going anywhere near that...
I'm just saying, be responsible and take a minute to ensure you aren't selling to the next mass murdering jerk.

How unreasonable of me, I know.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:32 PM   #169
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Kochman, you said most people who oppose checks are probably prohibited. Now you are revising your claim. Revisionism does not change what you said before.

Meanwhile, you are only looking at risk from one side: Use of firearms in crime by prohibited persons. Is that a risk? Yes.

But you ignore another risk: the risk that government will continue to grow, in increments, and that individual rights will continue to recede, in increments. Is that a risk? Yes.

Which is the greater risk?

Arguably, the latter.

If you don't think so, do a google search for what happened to the Kulak class in the USSR in the 30s and 40s; then cross-reference to the Ukraine famine which followed (when the government kills off its educated farmers, agriculture suffers). See how many people were killed, net, and then compare that to all homicides committed in the United States, ever.

Then tell me about risk, and responsibility.

The government concerns me much more than random thugs do.

Before you tell me "that was the USSR, this is the US!" do a look-up on the Banana Wars; the manner in which Panama became a nation; government activities against unions in New England in 1919-1920; the Yellow Peril; the Red Scare; Wounded Knee.

Yes, it can happen here. It becomes more likely to happen here when citizens willingly bend their knee.
MLeake is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:33 PM   #170
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
I'm just saying, be responsible and take a minute to ensure you aren't selling to the next mass murdering jerk.

How unreasonable of me, I know.
In fact, you are suggesting quite a lot more than that. You are suggesting that access to a constitutionally guaranteed right should be exclusively through a federally controlled legal choke point.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:35 PM   #171
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,436
Quote:
That is a result of due process, not the commerce clause.
Becoming prohibited is due process. Regulating the commerce to prevent people prohibited from engaging in commerce they're prohibited from- by due process- is the commerce clause.

Quote:
However, it is a state issue.
The States are not allowed to regulate interstate commerce.

Quote:
Once it's IN state and the commerce is IN state, it is not, by the very definition of the word, INTERstate commerce.
That is not what has been held.

A transaction in one state between residents of two separate states has been held interstate commerce, as has any transaction that might AFFECT interstate commerce- i.e. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241
JimDandy is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:38 PM   #172
Kochman
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
MLeake,
I didn't revise my statement at all. I said you aren't necessarily "most" people.
You're comparing the USSR under Stalin to the USA in 2013?
I can't even begin to want to talk on such lines.
Submitting to a background check is hardly bending to your knees.

@Z
You're exaggerating the situation.
You're checking an already established status with a 4473. I think that is warranted for guns...
You'd not rent your apartment to someone, I would hope, without doing some sort of check either. It's 2013, there are a ton of bad people out there and a system that lets them walk amongst us... a lot.
They can look and act like anyone.

Ok, I've enjoyed this. I apologize if I've stepped over the line here at times. I'm going to bow out of it... with my parting words.

The 4473 doesn't deprive you of your rights, it just checks to see your status and if you've already been deprived of your rights.
Selling guns to strangers should require a check of such sort.
The current system isn't ideal, but it's what we have. It can be vastly improved on. Just in this thread several viable alternatives have come up, but, we're stuck with what we have.
Kochman is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:40 PM   #173
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy
Becoming prohibited is due process. Regulating the commerce to prevent people prohibited from engaging in commerce they're prohibited from- by due process- is the commerce clause.
Jim, that is incorrect. Legislation and executive administrative action are not due process, i.e. an adjudication in which one is permitted to present the merits of his eventual position.

An individual adjudicated incompetent, or a convicted felon, both were afforded an opportunity to have the facts pertaining to their individual situations examined by some kind of judicial authority.

That due process under the Fifth Amendment is not a matter of Congress enacting legislation by which everyone with brown hair is a legal incompetent, and everyone with glasses is a felon.

Under your analysis legislative "due process" would be sufficient to abridge the right to speak or vote, but we know that is not how our system works.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:41 PM   #174
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
I'm just saying, be responsible and take a minute to ensure you aren't selling to the next mass murdering jerk.
OK, we're really laying the hyperbole on like cream cheese on jello. You want me to make sure I'm not selling a gun to a criminal? How do I do that in a way that's not horribly intrusive? What level of scrutiny would satisfy that? Who decides just how much information is enough?

Even then, it won't stop the next mass murdering jerk. Cho, Loughner, and Holmes all passed the background check without issue.

Quote:
I find it offensive that some folks believe they are so special they shouldn't have to worry about society and the general safety of the people around them.
Again, hyperbole. The assertion is that I have no regard for the safety of those around me because I don't want to submit to an arbitrary, intrusive, expensive, and ultimately futile boondoggle. That's straight out of the gun-control handbook: if I don't support X, I might as well be throwing children into traffic.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old April 16, 2013, 12:42 PM   #175
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kochman
And people have to get licenses to own cars, and register their ownership.
Actually, no, they don't. Anyone can own a car. One must have a license to drive one on a public road, and the car must be registered in order to do so. But it's fine for a 13-year-old farm kid to drive an unregistered vehicle on her family's property -- and many do exactly that.

As to the Preamble, here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia article you cited:
On the other hand, courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution. United States v. Kinnebrew Motor Co.[21] is an example of this. In that case, the defendants were a car manufacturer and dealership indicted for a criminal violation of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Congress passed the statute in order to cope with the Great Depression, and one of its provisions purported to give to the President authority to fix "the prices at which new cars may be sold".[22] The dealership, located in Oklahoma City, had sold an automobile to a customer (also from Oklahoma City) for less than the price for new cars fixed pursuant to the Act. Substantively, the case was about whether the transaction in question constituted "interstate commerce" that Congress could regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause.[23] Although the government argued that the scope of the Commerce Clause included this transaction, it also argued that the Preamble's statement that the Constitution was created to "promote the general Welfare" should be understood to permit Congress to regulate transactions such as the one in this case, particularly in the face of an obvious national emergency like the Great Depression. The court, however, dismissed this argument as erroneous[24] and insisted that the only relevant issue was whether the transaction that prompted the indictment actually constituted "interstate commerce" under the Supreme Court's precedents that interpreted the scope of the Commerce Clause.[25]
So it would seem that there is already a precedent to the effect that the Preamble does not give Congress the right to regulate commercial transactions.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17245 seconds with 7 queries