Quigley/McCarthy brief supporting handgun ban

[mrreynolds]

Congressmen Mike Quigley and Carolyn McCarthy are leading a group of 54 representatives who have signed an amicus brief in support of Chicago's handgun ban. A copy of the brief is available at:

Other New Yorkers signing onto their brief include: Gary Ackerman, Tom Bishop, Yvette Clark, Joseph Crowley, Eliot Engel, Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, Carolyn Maloney, Jerrold Nadler, Charles Rangel, Jose Serrano, Louise Slaughter, Edolphus Towns and Anthony Weiner.

[LINK]

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rob P.]

I do not understand the mindset of any politician who would sign their name to an amicus brief advocating gun bans in this political climate. It's a political death knell.

[mlr1m]

Second, Congress has for decades exercised the power assigned it by the Constitution to regulate, and in some cases ban, the use or possession of certain weapons. In doing so, Congress has regularly considered, interpreted, and applied the Second Amendment in view of its obligation to support the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution is this power to regulate or ban firearms? If the power is there, which I do not believe it is, why was it only discovered in recent decades? Wouldn't it seem reasonable if this power was indeed there it would have been written about by the authors of the Constitution?

Michael

[torgo1968]

I do not understand the mindset of any politician who would sign their name to an amicus brief advocating gun bans in this political climate. It's a political death knell.

These people are in "safe" districts politically speaking. Trust me, if there was any threat to their office, they wouldn't have done it. Let's face it, McCarthy was elected solely because of her position on guns.

[SIGguy229]

Where in the Constitution is this power to regulate or ban firearms? If the power is there, which I do not believe it is, why was it only discovered in recent decades? Wouldn't it seem reasonable if this power was indeed there it would have been written about by the authors of the Constitution?

Michael

CONgress believes they have the power to regulate based on the "inter-state commerce" clause in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

[MitchellCT]

Where in the Constitution is this power to regulate or ban firearms? If the power is there, which I do not believe it is, why was it only discovered in recent decades? Wouldn't it seem reasonable if this power was indeed there it would have been written about by the authors of the Constitution?

Michael

Read the Heller decision. It says that the second amendment, like the first, is not unlimited.

None of the Bill of Rights is unlimited.

If you are actually interested in reading about the standards in Constitutional Law, not just jumping up & down shouting "What part of shall not be infringed don't you get!!" then I'll direct you toward some material on the standards of review for laws infringing on the bill of rights.

If not...

Happy complaining.

[mlr1m]

then I'll direct you toward some material on the standards of review for laws infringing on the bill of rights.

I would love to read up on the subject more.

Michael

[ccw9mm]

Where in the Constitution is this power to regulate or ban firearms?

Read the Heller decision. It says that the second amendment, like the first, is not unlimited.

None of the Bill of Rights is unlimited.

That may be, but bans (as evidenced by the DC and Chicago bans) are generally designed to keep the People in as near to that condition as is possible, to the degree that a firearm is wholly unusable, inoperable or unavailable, essentially making an effective defense impossible in deadly situations by the vast majority of people. One would think it simple common sense that such a condition cannot exist if the goal of the 2A (defense against threat) is to exist at all. Even with Heller, the moment someone goes outside the home one is stripped of all effective ability to defend against violent crime.

I hope the Chicago case kicks the teeth out of the ban and further cements the simple breadth and inviolability of ownership, possession AND carry both inside and outside the home. I highly doubt it'll come anywhere near this, limp as the SCOTUS is proving to be on all of this. Still, it could be worse, blindly liberal-leaning as much of the Court is.

The arguments and briefs will be interesting.

[retsupt99]

Carolyn McCarthy is a buffoon... YouTube - Carolyn McCarthy Ignorant Even on Gun Control
I'm sure that she is in similar company with her group of anti-gun folks.

[cwblanco]

Where in the Constitution is this power to regulate or ban firearms? If the power is there, which I do not believe it is, why was it only discovered in recent decades? Wouldn't it seem reasonable if this power was indeed there it would have been written about by the authors of the Constitution?

If you are referring to the Illinois constution, I have the same question. From the Illinois constitution:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)

The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller has already ruled that Washington DC had unreasonably restricted/banned firearms. In the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court the question is not what Illinois's constitution says, but whether the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies to the states. [Apparently the Illinois Supreme Court has a difficult time understanding its own constitution]

[bsnow]

Carolyn McCarthy is a buffoon... YouTube - Carolyn McCarthy Ignorant Even on Gun Control
I'm sure that she is in similar company with her group of anti-gun folks.

Thanks for the youtube link. I will laugh quite awhile at her absolute stupidity..(-:

[Patti]

Reporter: Do you know what a barrel shroud is?

McCarthy: It's in the barrel thing that goes up.

Reporter: No it is not.

[wjh2657]

Where in the Constitution is this power to regulate or ban firearms? If the power is there, which I do not believe it is, why was it only discovered in recent decades? Wouldn't it seem reasonable if this power was indeed there it would have been written about by the authors of the Constitution?

Michael

We need to use a different argument. the historical argument works against us as community Gun Bans were very prevalent during the 18th and 19th centuries. ( Check your guns at the city limits postings were all over the place, East and West.)

[StevePVB]

It is always the same argument -- "reasonable" gun controls.

Even if we agreed with this sentiment, we could never agree on a good definition of reasonable. How can anyone think that disassembling and locking away a gun is reasonable? How can anyone agree that a complete ban is reasonable? Maybe they simply forgot to include the word "functional" when they wrote the 2A.

[mlr1m]

We need to use a different argument. the historical argument works against us as community Gun Bans were very prevalent during the 18th and 19th centuries. ( Check your guns at the city limits postings were all over the place, East and West.)

Those were state and local bans, not federal.

Michael