View Single Post
  #70  
Old 01-04-2013, 10:25 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 35,796
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Oh, lord, I missed this the first time.

Quote:
here are some people who believe that all gun control measures violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This belief is not consistent with constitutional law. The United States Supreme Court in 1980 held in Lewis v. United States that "legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties." The federal government may regulate the ownership of firearms, and such regulation is vital to curbing violence.
He's actually bringing up Lewis? The fools never provide the context for that quote, so I will address that failing:

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/445-055a.htm

LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

George Calvin Lewis was convicted of being a prior felon who received a firearm.

Quote:
...
The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if there is "some `rational basis' for the statutory distinctions made . . . or . . . they `have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.'" Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 422 (1974), quoting from McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 270 (1973), and Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U.S. 107, 111 (1966). See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979).[8] [445 U.S. 55, 66]

Section 1202 (a) (1) clearly meets that test. Congress, as its expressed purpose in enacting Title VII reveals, 18 U.S.C. App. 1201, was concerned that the receipt and possession of a firearm by a felon constitutes a threat, among other things, to the continued and effective operation of the Government of the United States. ...

[Footnote 8] These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
It's quite true that felon-in-possession laws have been ruled constitutional. Leaving out the "These" from the footnote, referring back to felon-in-possession laws, is dishonesty of the first water.

I find it telling that the good Congressman seems to classify all of us as felons, ineligible to possess firearms.
__________________
Once again, we're in CA Bill Season.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

Let us simply oppose them all - write, call, attend meetings with legislators and tell them they're wrong.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 01-04-2013 at 10:29 PM..
Reply With Quote