Is there any constitutional authorization for federal "gun control"

Funny you should ask. They answer is yes. Federal Firearm Licensees, e.g. gun stores are required to conduct a background check via the FBI National Crime Information System. Internet, and mail-order sales are also subject to that law. Many states have additional laws related to sales.

 

we know that-and we know that is based on FDR's expansion of the commerce clause. But do you believe that this state of the law is a valid interpretation of the commerce clause? I do not though I acknowledge it is what the current law is

 

I was trying to be as simple as possible explaining NCIS to the poster, who didn't seem to know ANY laws existed covering gun sales.

 

he does know but he is asking if they have a proper basis constitutionally. Many of us admit there are federal gun control laws but we also note they are based on fraudulent jurisdictional grounds

 

The OP determines what the topic is. Read forum rules!!! The guy who started the thread can establish THERE what it's about. But even THEY can't change the topic in the middle of the debate. Looks like things like "rules", and "laws", ... are not your strongest suit.

I will be more than happy to address your request once YOU produce a quote of ME saying that Marshall said that.

Spoiler alert: I didn't

Now.... if you want to discuss what I DID say, here it is
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...if-not-enumerated-in-the-constitution.613231/

 

more evasion. why are you citing Marshall for your unsupported claims that there is constitutional language supporting gun bans

 

Why are YOU using Marshall to claim that there IS?

I cited Marshall ONLY to rebut your challenge to show a legal scholar that agreed that Congress could pass laws about matters not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

My ONLY claim is that the 2nd A doesn't address ownership of guns in any way that would support or prohibit gun control legislation. A claim that you have been unable to rebut.

 

those non-enumerated items have to have some basis in the constitution. Gun control does not. your argument fails. We have already established KEEP protects ownership.

 

can someone actually explain the practical difference: if the government cannot interfere with you KEEPING (to hold, control and possess) a firearm, what practical effect would there be if the government could ban OWNERSHIP of said weapon? the argument that the second amendment doesn't protect ownership but does protect the ability to hold, posses and control and item in perpetuity is completely worthless

 

I've been away for a few days, and I see nobody has posted any language from the constitution that would allow federal gun control legislation.

 

there isn't. that's why the FDR administration had to pretend that the commerce clause allowed something that had never been done prior to the FDR Administration-using the CC to give congress power over what private citizens did in their private capacities in their own sovereign states