Supreme Court to review NYS gun control law

They have already had their chance, just as the city of Chicago and the district of columbia had their chances, and proved their ideas were abject and unconstitutional failures. They had over thirty to make their ideas work, and they could not do it.

 

Well no you cant put a cop on every corner in nyc

 

That's the point - they want the states to have the power over one right but the federal government to have the power to override the states over other rights. It doesn't work that way, not after the 14th Amendment and certainly not after Chicago v McDonald.

 

States have power and Authority.
People have Rights to protect them from Government oppression.
States do not have the right to do anything at all, laws govern what a State may or may not do.

People have had the Right to defend themselves as creatures as soon as they became sentient, long before Governments existed, Rights existed.

The Federal Government Agency, B.A.T.F.E.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is the Agency currently overseeing and enforcing Federal Firearms laws, they define laws and selectively decide how to enforce laws as well as define existing laws, an overbearing top heavy agency.

If you want to do any business involving firearms, Interstate or Intrastate, you are required y Federal law to aquire a Federal Firearms License, individuals can obtain a Curio & Relic licence to enhance a personal collection.

Neither the Federal Government nor the States respect an individuals Rights.

The Constitution can grant power to the States over firearms matters or the Federal Government, but not both.

The Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

~~~~~~~~~~

"Congressional Authority to Regulate Firearms: A Legal Overview
Congressional Research Service 1
Overview of Commerce Clause
The U.S. Constitution specifies the enumerated powers of the federal government.1
These powers,
however, have been interpreted broadly so as to create a large potential overlap with state
authority. States may generally legislate on all matters within their territorial jurisdiction.2
Indeed,
criminal law, family law, property, and contract and tort law, among others, are typical areas of
law that are regulated at the state level.3
Accordingly, states have enacted their own laws
regarding the unlawful possession and disposition of firearms, as well as the manner in which
firearms may be carried.
Congress, too, has enacted legislation related to firearms control. It includes, among others, the
National Firearms Act of 1934,4
the Gun Control Act of 1968,5
the Firearm Owners’ Protection
Act of 1986,6
and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.7
Generally, Congress has
relied on its authority under the Commerce Clause to enact such statutes.8
The Commerce Clause
states: “The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nationals, and
among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.”9
Although a plain reading of the text might suggest that Congress has only a limited power to
regulate commercial trade between persons in one state and persons of another state, the Clause
has not been construed quite so narrowly, particularly in the modern era.10 Since the 1930s, the
U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress has the ability to protect interstate commerce from
burdens and obstructions “no matter what the source of the dangers which threaten it.”11 Over
1
U.S. Const., art. I, §1(“All legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”).
2
The states’ authority, or “police power,” to enact such legislation does not arise from the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it
is an inherent attribute of states’ territorial sovereignty. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999). The Supreme Court
in Alden affirmed that states retain a “residuary and inviolable sovereignty” and that “our federalism requires that
Congress treat the States in a manner consistent with their status as residuary sovereigns and joint participants in the
governance of the Nation.” Id. at 748.
3 See, e.g., Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 109 (1945) plurality opinion (“Our national government is one of
delegated powers alone. Under our federal system the administration of justice rests with the States except as Congress,
acting within the scope of those delegated powers, has created offenses against the United States.”). The states have
retained “inherent police power,” Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921), meaning the power to legislate for
the “health, safety, and morals” of the citizenry. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991).
4
P.L. 73-474 (1934), codified at 26 U.S.C. ch.53.
5
P.L. 90-618 (196, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§921 et seq.
6
P.L. 99-308 (1986).
7
P.L. 104-159 (1994).
8
The National Firearms Act of 1934 levies taxes regarding the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and other
weapons. Therefore, it could be argued that Congress is also relying on its authority under the Taxing Clause to enact
this statute. U.S. Const., art. I, §8, cl. 1.
9
U.S. Const., art. I, §8, cl. 3.
10 For a historical overview and early jurisprudence regarding the Commerce Clause, see CRS Report RL32844, The
Power to Regulate Commerce: Limits on Congressional Power, by Kenneth R. Thomas. In the early 20th century, the
U.S. Supreme Court generally declared various federal statutes, which regulated the movement of goods or persons,
constitutional under the Commerce Clause. However, the Court struck down a series of federal statutes which
attempted to extend commerce regulation to activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” or “mining.” See, e.g.,
United States v. E.C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1 (1895); Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936).
11 NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1, 36 (1937) (“The fundamental principle is that the power
to regulate commerce is the power to enact ‘all appropriate legislation’ [citation omitted] for ‘its protection and
advancement’ [citation omitted]; to adopt measures ‘to promote its growth and insure its safety’ [citation omitted]; ‘to
(continued...)