Federal judges in both Virginia and Florida have recently ruled that Congress's "individual mandate" for every American to buy health insurance was void because "Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate." These rulings are consistent with the long standing principle that Congress's power is limited to those specific Congressional powers "enumerated" in the Constitution, and that all other powers "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In this week's ruling against Obamacare, U.S. District Court Judge Roger K. Vinson of the Northern District of Florida cited extensively to the US Supreme Court's 1995 rulling United States v. Lopez in which the Court struck down the federal ban on carrying a gun at a school because the ban exceeds the authority of Congress, including the authority "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3."
But if Congress lacks the power to ban gun carry at schools, could it ban the carry of guns made after a certain date at schools? That would appear to be the clever logic implied by H.R. 308 introduced by Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D - NY).
Most new handguns sold in the United States are semi-automatic pistols designed to accept magazines holding 12 or more rounds. McCarthy's H.R 308 would ban the carry of any pre-H.R. 308 magazines holding more than just 10 rounds.
The Act also makes the magazines non-transferable, and so it would also be a federal crime for Americans to carry pre-H.R. 308 normal capacity magazines if they did not also possess them prior to enactment of the bill. The constitutional "time-shifting" doctrine thus implied by McCarthy's magazine ban is that the power of Congress to ban the possession of any item is unlimited if the item is possessed in the future by any person not previously in possession of the item.
In short, McCarthy's magazine ban rests on a constitutional theory that Congress's power to enact "future crimes" is unlimited. The new Congress should reject McCarthy's magazine ban as not just bad public policy, but beyond it's power.
Comments
Hi Mike, all of the gun articles I publish on the Los Angeles Examiner get "not newsworthy" letters. How about you?
www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/charles-nichols
www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/charles-nichols-1
Charles - I have never heard of a "not newsworthy" letter
The First 10 Amendments to the Constitution as Ratified by the States December 15, 1791
PREAMBLE Congress OF THE United States.
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.."
Amendment II "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."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
On Morality Conscience and Rights
“The word Morality may be defined, in part as, a simple a code of individual conduct.
Conscience, when correctly applied, serves the individual in some circumstances as a restraint upon certain actions, and in other circumstances as a calling to act.
The word Rights identifies in part, the natural status of every person.
From the quality of Conscience, Moral concepts have been derived, and the natural extension of the quality of Conscience as combined with Moral concepts is recognition of the Rights of each individual.
The Moral code of conduct dictates that each person conduct themselves in such a manner as to avoid intentionally violating the Rights of another person or persons.
It never ceases to amaze me of how stupid our law makers can be.
Do they seriously believe that anyone with criminal or evil intent will obey their laws?
Personally, they'll have to pry my 'pre-ban' magazines from my dead cold fingers.
They don't care about criminal or evil intent. Their purpose is not to disarm the criminals. Their purpose is to disarm the responsible honest citizens.
Disarmed people can be more easily controlled, cannot resist the government mandates and can be easily brought to extermination camps.
The crime part is just an excuse, a pretext to disarm you so you cannot resist the government.
The real crooks are in office, not on the streets.
If anyone can carry a loaded gun anywhere they want to, then I insist that I should be able to walk around with a bomb that can kill exactly the same number of people that their fully loaded weapon can. What's the difference right? I think it's discrimination to let just the people with guns have all the fun. If you guys can make magazines that hold a whole bunch of bullets that would be cool. Then I could walk around with, I dunno, maybe a small nuke. That would be cool, right?
Facetious: Characterized by flippant humor or sarcasm
=Dave,
The amendment just says "Arms.' Trenche Cox and Patrick Henry extrapolated this to mean 'every terrible weapon of war.' Therefore, If you wish to carry around a small (or indeed Large) bomb of Tactical Nuclear Weapon, then your right to do so is protected (NOT granted) by this amendment.
Your flippant sarcasm show a puerile imagination an immature vocabulary and an inadequate understanding of the Constitution, U.S. History, or the english language.
MaCarthy is easily one of the most ignorant politicians in America. Watch her try to explain, or rather try to avoid explaining what a "barrel shroud" is and why it needs to be banned:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
The woman is so stupid she doesn't even know what the features she supports banning are, much less have any real reason for banning them other than would like to use the constitution for toilet paper.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!