Let me address these three statements. Yes, the US Constitution does limit the roles and responsibilities of government through enumeration and our government sometimes violates the Constitutional limitations on the powers of government. A perfect example of this is our immigration laws because the US Constitution doesn't enumerate any role or responsibility to Congress to legislate immigration laws. The Congress doesn't have an enumerated power to control immigration. So if the Congress repeals all of the immigration laws, because the Constitution never enumerated any power to Congress to control immigration, making it 100% lawful for any foreigner to immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes such as employment and/or to be with their family then you and your wife support that. I also support that because it's both in compliance with the limited roles of our government based upon enumeration and because I believe in the rule of law. To answer one more question you asked. Absolutely and we can document that racism going back to 1882 and the Chinese Exclusion Act, our first immigration law based upon racism specifically addressing the Chinese. Today's immigration laws also target the Chinese preventing immigration for peaceful purposes because "social conservatives" (Republicans today) seeking to retain White Supremacy in our social, economic, and political institutions don't want the Chinese (or "Mexicans") immigrating to the United States because the immigration of non-Whites, that can eventually become US citizens, erodes White Supremacy in our social, economic, and political institutions. Always remember that the moniker of the Republican Party as being the "Party of Angry White Men" is not undeserved and they fear the dwindling number (per capita) of "Angry White Men" that support their political agenda. Restricting immigration of non-whites is one way of slowing down the eventual loss of power of "Angry White Men" in our social, economic, and political institutions. Another way is to legislate voting laws that disproportionally disenfranchise "non-Whites" such as the Voting ID laws.
Conceptually, background checks are flawed; from fact that it is illegal for a person to break the law does not logically follow that we must prevent that person from doing so. Operationally, , they are flawed; it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law. Constitutionally, they are flawed; they are a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same, one that creates a condition of prior restraint, where the state restrains the exercise of a right on the grounds that said exercise might be illegal.
The main source of gun deaths is self-inflicted, i.e. suicide. Maybe we should be asking the question WHY are people killing themselves?
These are the same digests cited whenever it is claimed that US v Miller interpreted the second amendment as protecting a collective right rather than an individual right, correct? That there is a lack of respect for the law in the united states, especially when it interferes with what others want. At least those who download child pornography are found and prosecuted for their actions. Their actions can be proven and documented through various means. The same cannot be said when the topic pertains to the private transfer of unregistered firearms. Pray tell what is the role and purpose of law, if there is no motivation to abide by the law when almost no one is ever punished for violating the law? Without proof that it actually applies, and actually can be applied, nothing exists but mere abstract thought; that a law exists in theory, but there is no evidence of its existence because it is not used. The department of justice itself has stated that universal background checks are useless without a corresponding universal registration of every last firearm in existence to ensure the law is being complied with. Pray tell who should be listened to more readily on this issue; yourself who is saying that the proposed law would work simply because it is the law, or the united states department of justice who explain that the proposal is fundamentally flawed and unenforceable? Shall we consult the member BryanVA, who is a seasoned prosecuting attorney, and his explanation for how both firearms registration and universal background checks have no law enforcement benefit? Again, who should be more readily listened to? What are your credentials, that make you correct in your assessment of why the proposal would work, when those who have actual experience in the matter can explain in detail why they would not work, and be of no actual use?
You see, you make some valid statements as far as limits on GOVERNMENT powers and authority by the Constitution, however, our immigration laws have legal precedent, laws that have passed the legal process of law making, with no Constitutional challenges addressed in Court, ( SCOTUS ) they become law of the land until challenged in Court and struck down. Then you start spouting dingoes kidneys about white supremacy and vagaries and nebulous and specious unproven incompetent personal opinions over objective facts. U.S. immigration laws, whether they violate the spirit of law of the Constitution is determined by the Supreme Court, because it is noiw the law of the land. You have mixed your views some facts and a medley of public opinions into a stew.... Only an idiot would swallow that tripe complete, thankfully, I am well read, I am college educated and have a few advanced degrees.
That is true but there are caveats to this. First and foremost is that an "unconstitutional" law is unconstitutional from it's date of inception once the US Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional. For example when Roe v Wade struck down abortion laws as a violation of the Constitution it established that these laws, although they'd been enforced for decades, were unconstitutional laws from the date of adoption. The same was true when the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v Board of Education that addressed laws of segregation in education. The laws had always been unconstitutional. Next is that a law later repealed cannot be challenged. Only laws that exist on the books can be challenged. Finally not every law can be challenged because the plaintiff must have "standing" where they can demonstrate personal harm because of the law. We have laws like that were no one apparently has standing to challenge the Constitutionality such as the War Power Act. No individual can demonstrate personal harm due to the War Power Act so all cases against it have been dismissed. I tried doing a google search of Supreme Court cases dealing with the Constitutionality of our immigration laws, including the Chinese Exclusion Act (that was later repealed) but failed to find any cases that have been adjudicated. I'm making an assumption that the reason for the lack of adjudication on the Constitutionality of our immigration laws is because of a "lack of standing" by those that would challenge the laws. Of course I welcome any response that could point out a case where our immigration laws have been challenged before the US Supreme Court based upon Constitutionality. I don't think there's any doubt today that the Chinese Exclusion Act, if it was still law, was unconstitutional because it was expressly based upon the "race" of the Chinese. I don't know if anyone would have "standing" to make that challenge and believe it would be one of those cases where a "lack of standing" prevents a Constitutional review of the law by the US Supreme Court. So your claim that the immigration laws have not been challenged based upon Constitutionality and therefore remain in effect doesn't address the fact that they probably do violate the US Constitution but can't be challenged because no one has "standing" to file the lawsuit.
I agree; we have a Second Amendment that clearly expresses what is necessary to the security of a free State.
as you can see by his response, there is no clue about this issue. there is one question that destroys the anti individual rights bots who pretend that one has to be in a militia for the right to vest WHAT PRE-Existing right did the founders intend to guarantee and recognize with the second amendment? a right they saw as existing prior to the creation of the state CANNOT BE dependent or based on MEMBERSHIP IN A STATE CREATED entity
"So your claim that the immigration laws have not been challenged based upon Constitutionality and therefore remain in effect doesn't address the fact that they probably do violate the US Constitution but can't be challenged because no one has "standing" to file the lawsuit." No, zero to do with standing, SCOTUS would have to agree to hear it, and anyone can File for a hearing and present an Amicus Curae.
Apparently you have little knowledge related to adjudication of disputes in our court system. The case is first presented in a federal court and "standing" must be established. If standing is not established the case is discharged but if standing is established the federal court is required to hear the case. Any decision can be appealed to the District Court of Appeals, including the issue standing. The US Supreme Court does have some discretionary authority when it comes to hearing any case and typically the reasons for hearing the case are: A) to resolve issues of national importance and/or; B) to resolve conflicting Circuit Court of Appeals decisions. An amicus curiae brief (i.e. friend of the court) can be filed by parties not directly involved in the litigation but first and foremost there must be litigation to address. If there's no lawsuit, where the plaintiffs have standing (or where the issue of standing is in dispute), then there's no foundation for the amicus curiae. If the issue is "standing" then the Supreme Court doesn't rule on anything except the "standing" issue and makes no determination on the merits of the case which hasn't been heard in the lower courts. In the case of our immigration laws the only possible person that could have standing is the person denied lawful immigration but because they're living in a foreign country they don't have access to the US Court system and cannot file a lawsuit. They would also have to establish that the denial of immigration causes them personal harm which is virtually impossible to do. This case is similar to challenges against the War Powers Act and to the "Birther" lawsuits on President Obama's eligibility to be president. No one can show they're personally harmed by these issues of dispute so the cases are summarily discharged by the lower courts due to a lack of standing by the plaintiffs. So yes, the Supreme Court can refuse to review a lower Circuit Court of Appeals decision but all that does is leave the decision of the lower court in effect. The Supreme Court is actually making a decision by leaving the Circuit Court of Appeals decision intact and without further review. When it comes to the immigration laws there are no lower court rulings to be left intact because the cases are all discharged in the lower courts due to a lack of standing by the plaintiffs.
In the current US v Texas immigration case the states have standing because of the Administrations unconstitutional creation of new law that materially affects (injury) the state and Texas taxpayers.
Before the late 60s, buying a gun was as easy as buying a tool, furniture or even a freakin loaf of bread in most of the country. Since then, they've passed more and more gun control laws, yet the problem of gun violence in places with the strictest gun control laws have only gotten worse. Why would a sane person believe that more gun control laws would somehow provide a different result, this time? Einstein would call you all insane.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/ While the lower Federal Court and Circuit Court of Appeals have granted standing to Texas the Supreme Court has established that it's going to review the case to determine if Texas actually has standing in the lawsuit. It is the very first thing that the Supreme Court will consider because without standing the case is simply dismissed without further review. That's why "standing" is listed by the SCOTUS Blog as being the first issue to be addressed by the Supreme Court in this case. Additionally, if standing is recognized, the US Supreme Court is also going to address the issues of the immigrations laws and the Constitutionality of the executive order which has not been addressed in the lower courts at all. The Texas challenge was exclusively focused on the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and it's "prior notification" requirements. We've seen "standing" play a significant role in relatively recent Supreme Court decisions. In the California Prop 8 decision the Supreme Court denied standing to the "defense" because it was not the State of California defending Prop 8. The denial of "standing" to the defense of Prop 8 resulted in a default decision to the plaintiff's that challenged Prop 8 based upon the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment. Prop 8 was automatically stuck down because there was no defense against the challenge by the plaintiffs that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment. In the challenge to DOMA Section 3 where the federal government was refusing to accept any marriage except for opposite-sex couples the DOJ refused to defend the law (after compelling legal arguments in the Federal Court by the plaintiffs) and the issue of "standing" for House Republicans that defended DOMA Section 3 was waived by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that hearing the case was of national importance and that to deny standing to the House Republicans would have prevented Supreme Court review so it waived the "standing" requirement. The standing issue was waived with the voluntary consent of the plaintiffs that want the Supreme Court to address DOMA Section 3 for all of the United States. Going back even further the Supreme Court also waived the issue of "standing" in Roe v Wade because the time required for a case to reach the Supreme Court exceeded the duration of the pregnancy that abortion laws addressed. Standing was waived in Roe v Wade because the defense wanted the Supreme Court's decision in the case. So sometimes, in rare cases of national importance, the Supreme Court has been known to waive the issue of standing but generally this has always been with the consent of the other party to the lawsuit such as the DOMA Section 3 and Roe v Wade cases.
The Joe Friday approach: More Guns - Less Crime. More Armed Citizens - Less Criminals. More Gun Control - More crime & More Criminals.
The murder rates have been in decline for decades. In 1970 the murder rate was 7.9 per 100,000 people. It did rise to a peak of 10.2 in 1979 but as of 2014 it was only 4.5 per 100,000. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970 I'm not going to claim that this dramatic reduction in the murder rate was exclusively because of gun control legislation since the 1960's but there's no doubt at all that the gun control legislation has significantly reduced the murder rate in the United States.
Micro-stamping: Lets say that every projectile sold could be linked to the buyer.That would depend on criminals being stupid enough to use their own ammo when committing a crime. Why not use a get-away car registered in their own name? Maybe the rifling can scratch a bar code on every projectile! Now what? Why not pass a law requiring criminals to show ID when committing a crime. Background checks on ammo sales: I guess this sounds good to those who don't understand how easy ammo is to make. I reloaded my own ammo when I was 9. Driving ammo sales underground will not take a single round out of the hands of criminals. Universal background checks: This is something I don't have a problem with, but also know that it will become less effective over time. Guns are just too easy to make. 3D printers make it even easier.
With countless billions of rounds of ammunition being bought and sold over the course of a year, it is only a matter of time before unique identifying marks have all been exhausted, and new ones simply cannot be created. What happens then? It was already attempted. There is a reason it was stopped. It is ineffective without a corresponding universal registration of every single firearm currently in existence. This has been discussed countless times.
"It is ineffective without a corresponding universal registration of every single firearm currently in existence. This has been discussed countless times." ****************************************************************************************** Gun registration will accomplish NOTHING. It will not reduce crime, criminals will NOT register guns, they will continue to steal legally owned guns and perhaps deface serial numbers. Microstamping ammo will simply make ammo more expensive, and more people will cast their own bullets and load their own ammo, more feel good B.S. that will accomplish NOTHING !!!!! None of these measures will reduce deaths by 80%, and there are no "GUN" deaths, there are deaths secondary to attacks by violent criminals, regardless of the weapon use.
why do some make it seem that purchase records are not sufficient proof of ownership, registered in that Firms's customer data.
