The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 5, 2017, 08:49 AM   #151
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed Chicagoan
If it doesn't pass what prevents Congress from passing restrictions in the future? What stops them, for example, from prohibiting carry in a religious institution? Any place that sells alcohol? Magazine capacity restrictions?

They can do any and all those things without national reciprocity. And whatever else they have the votes to pass and a President willing to sign.
The commerce clause of the COTUS. The Federal government does not possess general police powers. It isn't good citation practice to quote the syllabus, but that's what I've done below.

Quote:
To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 552-568.
Syllabus to US v. Lopez, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/ .
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 09:27 AM   #152
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
Quote:
What is the quote??
What she actually said was, "But we have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

She was speaking to a group twelve days before the Senate's version of the bill was voted on in the House. Just prior to making this often misquoted statement, she talked to the group about controversies surrounding the bill. Exactly what the final bill would look like hadn't been completely settled yet, and she, in essence, told the group that WE (meaning Congress) would have to complete the process and pass the bill so YOU (meaning the group she was speaking to) would have a better understanding of what was in it.

As often happens with quotes and partial quotes, the part she was quoted on was changed slightly, and the rest of her sentence was left out to make it seem that she was saying one thing when she was actually saying something else. This is one of the things I absolutely hate about the internet. It's too easy to take a comment out of context to push an agenda. It happens on all sides of the spectrum, and only serves to further divide us as a country. I've seen it happen entirely too much since the advent of the internet, and until we learn how to vet the veracity of what we read on the web, the internet culture of half truths and outright lies will ultimately lead to our downfall as a nation.
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 12:44 PM   #153
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
steve4102, Congressman Massey's description and explanation of the reciprocity bill coupled with fix-ncis shows how involving the Feds is a double-edged sword that will probably end up doing more harm than good. The idea that this will be a victory for us is unlikely at best.

The only way gun rights will be expanded at a national level is if SCOTUS rules the 2A supports those rights. They don't seem to have any interest in doing so at this time. I'm not optimistic.

I wish I had the confidence Aquila Blanca and others have that the 2A prohibits any regulation of our right to keep and bear arms. While "shall not be infringed" seems unequivocal, "well regulated" not so much. I've spent a lot of time reading opinions going back to the founders, and I don't think there was any more agreement on the 2A when the Bill of Rights was ratified than today.

I live in Illinois, a restrictive state for gun rights by most definitions. The reason I can legally carry a gun was not the enlightened state or federal legislatures, but the Heller ruling of the US Supreme Court. Passing additional laws, that may or may not be Constitutional seems like a waste of time and money.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 01:58 PM   #154
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,656
I simply love it when someone quotes Lopez.

Why? Because almost immediately after that decision, the Congress piled inference upon inference to thier interstate commerce clause authority and passed a new law that did almost exactly the same thing. "Almost", because they added a couple of exceptions.

The "new" § 922(q) has been upheld ever since.

SonOfScubaDiver, argue against internet memes all you want. However, first get the facts straight... It was the MSM that first misquoted Ms. Pelosi. A huge deal was made of this in the press of the day.

Did people on the internet take it up? Most assuredly we did. But we were not the first. Hard to stop a meme when it becomes viral.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 02:03 PM   #155
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver
What she actually said was, "But we have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

She was speaking to a group twelve days before the Senate's version of the bill was voted on in the House. Just prior to making this often misquoted statement, she talked to the group about controversies surrounding the bill. Exactly what the final bill would look like hadn't been completely settled yet, and she, in essence, told the group that WE (meaning Congress) would have to complete the process and pass the bill so YOU (meaning the group she was speaking to) would have a better understanding of what was in it.
And even if that's the case, it's a load of hogwash to claim that a bill must be passed in order for any particular group to find out what's in it or to understand it. The contents of law ought not to be treated like a Christmas present, only to be discovered by surprise.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 02:15 PM   #156
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,357
Especially when Obama had promised that all laws would be up public review before being voted on (which never happened)
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 02:39 PM   #157
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
I simply love it when someone quotes Lopez.

Why? Because almost immediately after that decision, the Congress piled inference upon inference to thier interstate commerce clause authority and passed a new law that did almost exactly the same thing. "Almost", because they added a couple of exceptions.

The "new" § 922(q) has been upheld ever since.
I am glad that you love it. Lopez is still accurate dicta on that point and struck a law that on its face was an exercise of power Congress lacked. The case wasn't overturned, but legislated around. It forced Congress to create a different finding to make the Act effective. Congressional fact finding that resembles fiction more than fact isn't new, but that Congress was required to engage in the pretense shows that the commerce clause, even in its modern and attenuated form, is still an obstacle, even if it isn't insurmountable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
SonOfScubaDiver, argue against internet memes all you want. However, first get the facts straight... It was the MSM that first misquoted Ms. Pelosi. A huge deal was made of this in the press of the day.
More to the point, the meme isn't deceptive. The controversy to which Pelosi made reference was the controversy over what was going to be in the bill in order to get the bare majority of dems to vote for it. The last change I recall was for Bart Stupak, though that may not have been reflected in the text of the actual act, but a handshake deal with BHO.

The meme and Pelosi's statement have the same meaning; one can't know the result of the political bartering process until the process has concluded. It wasn't going to conclude until it passed.

Last edited by zukiphile; December 5, 2017 at 03:05 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 05:32 PM   #158
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
^^^ I have no further information but, if Massey's information is correct, then I do have a problem.

Quote:
(5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.

In my opinion, #5 is the biggest problem. The bill encourages administrative agencies, not the courts, to submit more names to a national database that will determine whether you can or can’t obtain a firearm.
Administrative agencies cannot adjudicate your rights, because "adjudicate" means a trial and a judge. The VA and the Social Security Administration have already played that game, and people were rightly upset. An administrative determination is NOT "adjudication."
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 07:08 PM   #159
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
The commerce clause of the COTUS. The Federal government does not possess general police powers. It isn't good citation practice to quote the syllabus, but that's what I've done below.
If you're going to make that claim then a reciprocity bill won't suddenly give them the power to pass concealed carry restrictions.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 07:29 PM   #160
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,357
And what about all of the riders being attached? The Feds have NEVER done anything right when it comes to the types of bills.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old December 5, 2017, 08:18 PM   #161
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armed Chicagoan
If you're going to make that claim then a reciprocity bill won't suddenly give them the power to pass concealed carry restrictions.
If you want Congress to regulate intrastate activity that has historically been a matter of state police power when you think it will benefit you, you've given away an argument against that encroachment in the future.

Can you ignore limits on federal power when it suits ends you like and observe those limits when it suits you? Of course. Lots of people have done exactly that for a very long time. However, opportunistic positions may be more easily dismissed than principled ones.

The peculiarity on this issue is that the 2d Am. is also a limit on government power. It's worth noting that defending the right of an individual against the government to keep and bear arms is harder to defend if you acknowledge that you aren't giving any weight to the limits on government power that might frustrate you.

If this issue is just about what most people want, we already know how that work out in other english speaking countries.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 02:18 AM   #162
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by K_Mac
I live in Illinois, a restrictive state for gun rights by most definitions. The reason I can legally carry a gun was not the enlightened state or federal legislatures, but the Heller ruling of the US Supreme Court. Passing additional laws, that may or may not be Constitutional seems like a waste of time and money.
You do realize that Heller did not apply the 2nd against state or local governments, and that the concealed carry law in IL was passed by the state legislature, do you not?
raimius is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 09:27 AM   #163
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
You do realize that Heller did not apply the 2nd against state or local governments
Heller did not, but McDonald v. Chicago did incorporate the 2nd and apply it State/Local governments shortly after Heller. But you are correct that the IL legislature passed CC... as CC has not been adjudicated to be a constitutional right yet.

Quote:
(5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.
AB, where did you quote this from? This is an obvious 5th amendment due process violation. Even layman obvious.
5whiskey is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 10:00 AM   #164
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
raimius I do understand that it was the Heller ruling that made McDonald possible, and that was the driving force that brought CC to the state legislature. It would never had made it to a vote if the Chicago political machine had its way. That would not have happened if Heller hadn't affirmed the individual's right to self-defense.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 02:50 PM   #165
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
Illinois passed CC because they had to after the 7th Circuit ruled (Shepard v. Madigan) that bearing arms outside the home was a right protected by the 2A. So in the 7th Circuit at least bearing arms outside the home is a right.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 04:12 PM   #166
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Armed_Chicagoan you can chase this rabbit all day if you wish. Yes, the 7th concluded that Mary Shepard had the right to carry to protect herself, and that the ridiculous Illinois law prohibiting CC was in violation of the 2A as interpreted by Heller. Again, it was Heller that ruled self-defense was an individual right. Illinois was dragged kicking and screaming to allowing concealed carry and it was Heller that made it possible.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 06:26 PM   #167
Onward Allusion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2009
Location: Back in a Non-Free State
Posts: 2,929
Ain't dead yet. Just passed the House.
__________________
Simple as ABC . . . Always Be Carrying
Onward Allusion is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 06:54 PM   #168
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5Whiskey
Quote:
(5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.
AB, where did you quote this from? This is an obvious 5th amendment due process violation. Even layman obvious.
5th Amendment violation? How do you figure?

The violation is when the SSA or the VA unilaterally determine, without benefit of any semblance of a hearing or trial, that a person is "mentally defective" and must be reported to NICS as prohibited simply because they designated someone else to receive their benefit checks. My point was -- and is -- that these (and similar agencies) must be held to the legal standard, which requires "adjudication." A unilateral, adminsitrative determination falls so far short of any minimum standard of due process that it would be laughable if the consequences weren't so serious.

If these agencies want to have someone declared mentally defective, they should have to go before a judge, just as anyone else has to do.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 07:52 PM   #169
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
...Administrative agencies cannot adjudicate your rights, because "adjudicate" means a trial and a judge....
Administrative agencies have both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. In their quasi-legislative role, they adopt regulations which have the force of law and have broad applicability.

Administrative agencies also perform quasi-judicial functions. These functions include such things as issuing licenses, authorizing or declining to authorize acts of entities licensed by them or subject to their jurisdiction, and adjudicating charges of misconduct by persons or entities subject their jurisdiction. Examples of quasi-judicial administrative agency action include: a medical board revoking a physician's license for a breach of professional obligations; a department of insurance issuing a company a license to operate an HMO; a department of consumer affairs licensing real estate brokers fineing a real estate broker for an unlawful failure to properly maintain a trust account; or the ATF rejecting an application for an FFL.

These are quasi-judicial because they involve determining the facts of a particular matter, identifying and interpreting the applicable law and making a decision by applying the law to the facts. In most cases, an adverse quasi-judicial act of a regulatory agency is subject to multiple levels of appeal. For example, the physician unhappy about losing his license to practice medicine usually first has a right to an administrative hearing conducted by the agency. If he's still unhappy, he can seek judicial review.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 08:53 PM   #170
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 14,362
In the case of the VA and SSA reporting people to NICS, there is no process, let alone due process. There's no hearing -- someone sees that the person appointed a third-party payee, and BOOM! Off goes a report to NICS. And there isn't even any notification to the individual that they've been reported so there's no way they would know to appeal -- even if there were an avenue for appeal.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 09:56 PM   #171
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
For a dead resolution H.R. 38 just passed in the house today.
Where it goes now is anybodies guess but I believe it will continue on.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 10:00 PM   #172
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,046
K_Mac, yes Heller and McDonald we're vitally important in laying the groundwork, but it was still the legislature that passed the CCW law. Our legal fights are multi-layered.
raimius is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 11:05 PM   #173
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
raimius I agree that our fight is multilayered. There are many battles left to fight, but the war will be won or lost in the SCOTUS in my opinion. That battle will be decided by the politicians who appoint and confirm the Justices. We may have a disfunctional Congress and President (depending on who you ask) but like it or not they are ones we elected. Ultimately it is we the people who will decide. Lord help us.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 11:07 PM   #174
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 21,704
Quote:
Where it goes now is anybodies guess but I believe it will continue on.
it will go on to the Senate now, since it passed the House. Pro gun bills pass the House fairly regularly, and then die in the Senate. In fact, I can't remember, off the top of my head the last time the Senate passed anything that was good for us, and that we wanted.

I fully expect the "usual suspects" to use every trick in their bag to kill this, for two main reasons, one its pro gun, and two, Republicans want it passed.

Oh, also note that "strengthening the back ground check system" is also part of the Reciprocity bill now. That gives is a tiny chance.

I'm told that, once upon a time, we had a Congress that actually cared about what was the right thing to do. (I rather doubt it, but I have been told that)

All I've seen in the last few decades is chickspit partisan bickering.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 6, 2017, 11:35 PM   #175
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
I'm willing to say it will pass and it will be signed by the president into law. I do know that the two senators that are supposed to represent me are too socialist to vote yes on anything that resembles a pro gun bill. I will still write and call them to announce my desires but I doubt I will even get a polite "no" from either of them. I'm pretty firmly embedded in their "ignore" list.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10697 seconds with 8 queries