As we all know, Senator Dianne Feinstein’s [D-CA] Assault Weapon Ban bill (S: 150) was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Mar 12, 2013. It will most likely be heard/debated on the Senate floor sometime around mid April. The usual procedure is that at least 16 senators will invoke ‘Cloture’ by signing a cloture petition. Once done, a 3/5 majority (60) is needed to begin moving/debating the bill again. The likely hood of this passing the floor is very slim. But, anything is possible.
During the debate, several republican Senators questioned the Constitutional validity of S: 150. Senator Chuck Grassley [R-IO] was also upset that Erik Holder’s DOJ failed to provide any input as to it’s Constitutionality despite numerous requests. Does this failure of the DOJ sound familiar?
A quick review of the Constitution.
Nowhere in Article 1 § 8, the Enumerated Powers granted Congress, do firearms appear. Therefore, Congress does NOT have the power to legislate firearms. In fact, the word ‘firearms’ does not even appear anywhere in the constitution. The word ‘arms’ appears only once and that is in the 2nd Amendment.
The Commerce Clause - Article 1 § 8 clause 3, is often USED AND ABUSED for firearms laws. The commerce clause was designed to facilitate the movement of goods across state lines and not as a vehicle to piggyback new unconstitutional law.
Article 6 basically states that the Constitution is ‘The Supreme Law of the Land”. Many politicians use the phrase ‘in pursuance thereof’ in Article 6 as justification for their action. That reasoning proves to be unconstitutional as previously reported.
Now lets look at a couple of Supreme Court decisions/opinions.
The first is the United States v Miller case
A bizarre case to say the least, but we are left with some surprising ‘unintended consequences’ even though Miller lost the case.
In deciding U.S. v. Miller the Court only declared that ownership of a firearm could be restricted if, and only if, it had no connection to military or militia activity.
U.S. v. Miller strongly suggests that bans on military-type firearms, ammunition, and magazines are unconstitutional, as these devices plainly are central to the militia/military.
The strongest challenge to U.S. v. Miller rests on the Supreme Court’s having implied that the law-abiding person has a civil right to be armed, when it held in 1856 that the government had no duty to protect the average person.
Next we look at another convoluted case, and unintended consequences.
The Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation. The threat of death or bodily harm is not considered.
The Miller decision clearly indicates that all military, or military style weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The Bad Elk decision indicated one is entitled to resist, with lethal force, to resist an unlawful arrest or confiscation of property without a warrant, probable cause, and due process.
Both of these cases are still standing in law today, courtesy of the Supreme Court of the day. And the gun grabbers do not want you to even think about these cases.
©2013 Chris Woodard - All Rights Reserved.
Gun Rights Examiners......
Other sites of interest....