search
top

Let the Hysterics Begin

Looks like the powers that be, owned by certain a egomaniacal Mayor, are nervous as hell about HR822, as can be seen in this article. It’s a really good mix of both hysteria and misinformation. For instance, the bill would not allow a resident of New York City to carry on a Florida license, only people who resided out of state. This won’t help people in may-issue states carry in those states.

The bill “effectively prevents a state from controlling who has guns within the state, which has always been a core police power function of state government,” said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School, who said he thinks it would be held unconstitutional. “It is so ironic that it is the conservatives who are trying to push this encroachment, since they usually are very active in championing states’ rights.”

Segregating schools used to be a core police power function too, you know. How about coming up with an argument that’s actually compelling, professor. Here’s some other interesting opinions:

While the Constitution’s commerce clause gives Congress authority to regulate commerce between the states, the reciprocity bill probably wouldn’t fall within that power, said Weisberg, the law Stanford professor who serves as faculty co- director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center. Nor would it fall under Congress’ power to enforce such existing constitutional liberties as the right “to keep and bear arms,” he said.

That’s funny because the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms and ammunition is based on the exact same commerce power that the reciprocity bill is based on. So why is it constitutional for the federal government to prohibit possession by felons, and unconstitutional for it allow possession by the law abiding on the public streets?

 

16 Responses to “Let the Hysterics Begin”

  1. chris says:

    “The bill “effectively prevents a state from controlling who has guns within the state, which has always been a core police power function of state government,” said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School, who said he thinks it would be held unconstitutional. “It is so ironic that it is the conservatives who are trying to push this encroachment, since they usually are very active in championing states’ rights.””

    Since incorporation started happening to the BoR, states no longer have the ability to infringe on rights guaranteed by the constitution. States should get used to it and stop living in the bigoted days of pre-Civil War America.

  2. chris says:

    “While the Constitution’s commerce clause gives Congress authority to regulate commerce between the states, the reciprocity bill probably wouldn’t fall within that power, said Weisberg, the law Stanford professor who serves as faculty co- director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center. Nor would it fall under Congress’ power to enforce such existing constitutional liberties as the right “to keep and bear arms,” he said.”

    That is fine, we were not arguing either of those clauses… The Full Faith and Credit clause should be right on point though.

  3. Dave Y says:

    The problem I am seeing is that there is a significant contingent of gun owners who refuse to support this because it:

    -“Gives the federal government new power”
    -“Gives the federal government too much power (over cow)”
    -“opens the door for federal control of permits”

    I’m trying to figure out what… “new” power this legislation would “give” the fed.

    I hope it passes, but some of ours are undercutting the effort.

  4. Sage Thrasher says:

    Perhaps John Donohue would prefer the 1st Amendment’s interpretation to be left to the individual states as well? Wasn’t it Texas that made it illegal to defame a beef product a couple years ago? Speak no ill of ethanol in Iowa!

  5. Ian Argent says:

    Amusingly enough, were this to pass, I would be able to carry in Central Park on a Florida ticket, but not in my home town…

  6. SPQR says:

    I don’t necessarily support the bill but Donohue’s arguments are clearly not in good faith and he knows it.

  7. And the PSH begins. They’re going to try and find any way possible to rationalize the illegality/unconstitutionality of this bill.

  8. PT says:

    Bloomberg: “Oh noes! Our selective reading and twisting of the Constitution is coming back to bite us in the arse!”

    “And the PSH begins. They’re going to try and find any way possible to rationalize the illegality/unconstitutionality of this bill.”

    And unintentionally undermine a lot of other federal gun control laws and provide us quotes of our opponents quoting the BoR and Constitution as blocking federal gun laws.

  9. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “My commie compadre, John Donohue, is politically correct according to Marxist values! The bill effectively prevents a Marxist police state from controlling who has guns within the police state, which has always been a core police power function of police state government! It’s just common communist sense to oppose reciprocity!”
    “I’m not sure that Weisberg’s view is going to work, though. We commies have stretched the commerce clause to cover everything under the sun, and now we want to say that it doesn’t apply. We may have gone too far to be able to pull back on that. I suppose that we might argue that it’s only commerce when we commies are the ones making the law, but that might not cut it with the courts. They tend to chuckle ominously when they hear hopelessly one-sided arguments like that.”

  10. Chas says:

    Is it the commerce clause that covers the Civil Rights Act of ’64?
    Will the reciprocity of drivers licenses between the states have to be repealed, because it isn’t covered by the commerce clause?
    Weisberg is clutching at straws.

  11. Ian Argent says:

    Hanging this one on Commerce Clause is a bad idea when we have Full Faith and Credence (State A declares Citizen Z upright and honest) and 14th Amendment “Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation”).

  12. Dave Y says:

    The fact that Mike B. has weighed in on this bill with his shill group of lawbreakers is significant. It means that they consider this to have a serious chance. MAIG is not to be underestimated, they managed over 9,000 comments on the relatively obscure ATF rifle registration scheme. This shows quite clearly they’re scared of losing.

    This in and of itself should be enough for gunnies to get behind it. :-)

  13. Dave Y says:

    “Most of the gun control groups are going into hysterics over the prospect of HR822 becoming law.”

    Excellent Smithers!

  14. Ash says:

    I’d check my luggage for a day trip just for the right to carry in the cesspool that is downtown San Francisco.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Daily Pundit » Ruling Class Hoplophobes: We Must Keep The Peasants Disarmed and Helpless At All Cost! - [...] Let the Hysterics Begin | Snowflakes in Hell That’s funny because the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms…
  2. SayUncle » Push Poll - [...] Mayors Against Guns (who are 45 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than Florida concealed firearm license…
top