I was planning to write about something else today (will probably get to it later), but I've decided that a couple comments left in response to an earlier post merit a more thorough response than is practical in comments. In that post, I castigated the NRA for criticizing Holder for his opposition to "Project Exile."
In other words, the NRA is opposed (quietly and politely) to Holder not only for his zeal for so-called "gun control," but for his opposition to their brand of "gun control"--and who cares about the utter lack of any Constitutional justification for any federal gun laws, even without the Second Amendment?I actually haven't seen anyone try to argue with my claim that federal gun laws are unconstitutional not only because of the Second Amendment, but also because "gun control" is nowhere listed as one of the federal government's enumerated powers (in other words, I can make my argument without yelling "SNBI!" at anyone). For example:
In principle, I agree with you the federal government doesn't have any constitutional power to regulate possession of firearms by anybody. But if you go onto Capitol Hill and suggest that as a serious policy position you'll get laughed out of every Congressional and Senate office you're invited into.There's more, but most of the gist of it is summed up in those two paragraphs. As I read it, Sebastian acknowledges that all federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, but that's (apparently) a losing argument, hence the NRA's approach of trying to preempt additional gun laws by calling for enforcement of the (unconstitutional) ones already in place.
Project Exile is one of those things I don't really like either, because I don't believe the federal government ought to be exercising police powers. But the Supreme Court disagrees with us on this, and so do both other branches of government. You have to approach things from that reality.
Here's another example.
You were, perhaps, expecting the NRA to PRAISE Holder for opposing the program that they support?Believe it or not, I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think what I support (or not) should matter to the NRA. Whether I like "Project Exile," or not, is irrelevant. What matters is that the Constitution doesn't like it.
I can understand your opposition to "project exile" and I agree with it to a certain extent; but your post here seems to be making the rather silly contention that the NRA shouldn't have mentioned it because YOU don't support it.
Every time the NRA advocates "enforcing existing gun laws," they surrender the Constitutional high ground. How can they, with a straight face, argue that the Constitution prohibits all federal gun laws, except the ones that they endorse? How does that differ from rank hypocrisy? Finally, how dare they demand that the citizen disarmament advocates have any more respect for the Constitution than they do themselves?
If that's an example of the (dare I say it?) pragmatic approach, I'll stick to tilting at windmills.
Stumble it!
7 comments:
in other words, I can make my argument without yelling "SNBI!" at anyone
Maybe so, but you'll still get called a "threeper" and not in a complimentary manner. More often than not I wonder who it is that's really driving that wedge in deeper.
Oh, and word verfication for the last comment, ironically enough:
"unberi" -- what we should do with the guns, perhaps? ;-)
Could not have been stated better by anyone.
I am in the middle of some more heart trouble, spent the night in ER. Looks like I will dodge this bullet, but I implore you to never quit what you are doing. I can leave, if I must, with a lighter (though defective) heart :) if I know there are people such as you still defending my country.
Keep it up. Please.
Whoever you are, No Name, know that you have my best wishes for your recovery, and my thanks for your endorsement of what I do here.
Your argument that Congress does not have the power to make any gun control laws because it is not granted that specific power is a losing one. I agree with you on principle, but the current expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause will allow Congress to regulate firearms so long as they make findings as to the effect on interstate commerce, even if the activity is entirely intrastate, so long as the effect is not too attenuated. Basically, Congress has to screw up in drafting the bill such that they don't make any good connection to commerce, but generally when they do make such a connection, even if it is quite far-fetched but so long as it isn't ridiculous, the commerce power will be upheld by the Court. I do not agree with the Court on this, however, but that is the reason you would get laughed out of Washington with your argument. See U.S. v. Lopez for a case where the Court limited the commerce power in 1995, the first time it had done so in 60 years.
I acknowledge that the commerce clause has been brutally raped, over and over again, to the point that now no eyebrows would be raised when it's argued in court that a gardener who grows strawberries, and makes his own strawberry jam, affects interstate commerce because in doing so, he won't buy jam made in other states.
I still maintain that we cannot afford to preemptively join in the rape of the Constitution, even if doing so conveys a short term advantage.
Not only would no eyebrows be raised, but the Supreme Court has ruled that such activity does affect interstate commerce, although not because the individual won't buy from other states but rather because individuals growing in the aggregate affect interstate demand. It isn't just that this argument would pass without much question, the argument is THE LAW.
I wish I knew of a way to remedy this situation, but it is very probable that this trend will not only hold, but will increase as the federal government becomes stronger. Whatever party is in power will continue to use the commerce clause to suit their needs, and in doing so trample the vision that the founders had for our nation.
Post a Comment