PDA

View Full Version : Can Congress use Commerce Clause to



OutlandTrophy
8/17/2011, 08:58 AM
require each person over the age of 18 or 21 to purchase a handgun?

Mjcpr
8/17/2011, 08:59 AM
Maybe Commerce Clause could just leave everyone one at Christmas.

OutlandTrophy
8/17/2011, 09:00 AM
What if a person has 2 chimneys? Would Commerce Clause leave 2 handguns?

Mjcpr
8/17/2011, 09:02 AM
What if a person has 2 chimneys? Would Commerce Clause leave 2 handguns?

Commerce Clause delivers per capita, not per chimney.

sooner_born_1960
8/17/2011, 09:07 AM
We'll see. The Supremes will be weighing in on that very question (I know. Not that very question, but no different) some day.

Midtowner
8/17/2011, 09:46 AM
require each person over the age of 18 or 21 to purchase a handgun?

The founding fathers seemed to think so when they passed legislation requiring just that. No court ever weighed in to the constitutionality of that statue, however.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball...

OUMallen
8/17/2011, 09:48 AM
That's more conscription than it is requiring individuals to purchase guns for personal use only.

Midtowner
8/17/2011, 09:49 AM
That's more conscription than it is requiring individuals to purchase guns for personal use only.

Looks like both to me, actually.

Barry's_Scowl
8/17/2011, 09:50 AM
That's more conscription than it is requiring individuals to purchase guns for personal use only.

Exactly. Prerequisite is enlistment in the "militia".

Now, if you want to discuss whether "militia" translates today to the U.S. military or a true militia of citizens, that's another story.

OUMallen
8/17/2011, 09:52 AM
Looks like both to me, actually.

You're better than that, Mid.

Feeling argumentative today? Let's go get some coffee, buddy.

Mississippi Sooner
8/17/2011, 09:56 AM
"This is my musket, this is my gun."

Barry's_Scowl
8/17/2011, 10:51 AM
The same act required all such citizens to enroll in the militia. Are you saying you'd be OK with Congress enacting a law that enrolled everyone in the militia and THEN they had to buy health insurance?

What? I never said or even thought anything remotely close to that. I was helping to clarify what the text actually stated, and mentioned that today there are opposing viewpoints on what the word "militia" should be interpreted as.

But since you asked, no. I wouldn't be OK with Congress enacting a law to enroll everyone in a militia and force them to buy health insurance.

I am ****ing baffled as to where this came from.

NormanPride
8/17/2011, 10:58 AM
Why do you hate the military?

OutlandTrophy
8/17/2011, 11:01 AM
looks like someone hates America.

Midtowner
8/17/2011, 12:50 PM
You're better than that, Mid.

Nah, I can see your point, it's just that your interpretation ain't the only possible interpretation. The question as to whether Congress has ever commanded people to uniformly engage in affirmative acts which affect interstate commerce has been answered soundly in the affirmative.

Was that the Constitutional reasoning for it then? Definitely not. The commerce clause and the dormant commerce clauses' implications didn't really explode until after the Civil War.

That doesn't mean, however, that under our current understanding of the Constitution, it'd be automatically impermissible for the government to order everyone to buy a pick 'em up truck. I figure we'll have an answer, yea or nay in a few months. In the meantime, this is an argument which is totally academic.


Feeling argumentative today? Let's go get some coffee, buddy.

Not really argumentative at all. I just don't like people being wrong on the internet, dammit.

Barry's_Scowl
8/17/2011, 01:25 PM
Well, then, let me clarify for you:

Your post implied that it was somehow relevant to the discussion that before being forced to purchase a weapon, the person was conscripted. So I asked you whether conscription prior to being forced to buy something was a necessary condition that made the forced purchase OK.

Re-reading my comment, I can see how you could read it that way. Sorry about that. Should have been more clear.

NormanPride
8/17/2011, 01:57 PM
So nobody here hates the military or America?

OutlandTrophy
8/17/2011, 01:59 PM
I think at least one person does.

Mississippi Sooner
8/17/2011, 02:01 PM
I hate Illinois Nazis.

royalfan5
8/17/2011, 02:49 PM
If they can, would a shotgun like Lorenzo Lamas in Renegade had work?