Biden’s attempt to regulate pistol braces dealt blow after appeals court casts doubt on constitution

do you believe the founders believed that the federal government was empowered to restrict private citizens trading or selling firearms across state lines?

 

The commerce clause allows congress to regulate the trade of -anything- across state lines.

 

when did that happen? I deny it was the intent to limit what private citizens did-rather it was to prevent the interference with free trade among the several states
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/509/


While Justice Thomas has maintained that the original meaning of "commerce" was limited to the "trade and exchange" of goods and transportation for this purpose, some have argued that he is mistaken and that "commerce" originally included any "gainful activity." Having examined every appearance of the word "commerce"in the records of the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates and the Federalist Papers, Professor Barnett finds no surviving example of this term being used in this broader sense

 

So if company A wants to import, say, shoes, from company B in another state, what would you imagine the regulation would look like, or ought to look like?

 

Agreed. The term "regulate" at the time meant "keep regular". They wanted congress to be able to prevent trade wars among the states.

 

When the constitution was ratified.
-To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
-To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Almost all interstate commerce is between private citizens, or the companies owned by same.
And even if your claim is true....

That is certainly one application of the commerce clause - a grant of legislative authority to, say, prevent NY from placing a tariff on firearms imported from PA

The claim was there is "no legislative authority whatsoever".
That claim is false.

 

Irrelevant to the point made.

 

Okay, let's change the scenario. So if company A wants to import firearms from company B in another state, what would you imagine the regulation would look like, or ought to look like?

 

I never said there was no legislative power. I am correct in noting the commerce clause was NEVER used to restrict what private citizens did within their own states until FDR corrupted the Commerce Clause

 

Also irrelevant to the point made.
The commodity does not matter - congress has the legislative authority to regulate it when it crosses state lines.
Thus, the claim if 'no legislative authority whatsoever is false.

Note this has since been expanded to the power to regulate intrastate commerce when it affects interstate commerce .

 

Can we drop that? I agreed with you that congress has the power to legislate commerce among the states, which would include commerce in firearms.

Still, congress has no legislative power over the use and ownership of firearms.

 

And my statements are in response to someone who has.

 

@TOG 6 is talking about my claim earlier.

 

Okie dokie.

Congress, through the militia clauses, has the authority to require individuals to own a firearm and train with it.
So... this statement is false as well.

 

congress may well have that power-it was not given the proper power to deny private citizens the ability to own other arms. and I question whether congress can force training until someone was serving in a state militia that was federalized. In other words, it's a very narrow window

 

Wow, I'm batting zero. But we agree that congress has no legislative power to prohibit the use and ownership of firearms?

 

As TD said: It's a very narrow window.
And the Bruen ruling narrows it further.

 

not of private citizens acting in a private capacity. Congress certainly has the power to dictate what weapons regular army soldiers use while in federal service.

 

But I just want to be clear that congress has no legislative authority to limit or prohibit the private ownership and use of firearms. Do we at least agree on that?

 

if the tenth and second amendments are properly followed, the answer is no

 

I already addressed this.

 

If article one, section eight is followed, the answer is also no.

 

You addressed commerce. I don't think you addressed the issue of whether congress has the legislative power to limit or prohibit the use and ownership of firearms by private individuals.

 

I agree but congress can clearly pass legislation banning the import of goods from a hostile nation etc

 

As TD said: It's a very narrow window.
And the Bruen ruling narrows it further.