BREAKING: U.S. Appeals Court: Constitution Gives Right to Carry Gun In Public

What militia?

And does this mean you're giving up on the taxing clause to justify gun regulations?

 

Exactly. That clause justifies no arms regulations.

 

Indeed, it only allows congress to collect revenue and appropriate funds, both pursuant the subsequent enumerated powers.

 

The Militia.

 

of course they are, which is why they regulate them.

 

Strawman

 

very clearly does, in crystal clear English.

 

it's amusing that you think having your argument refuted, means the other poster is trolling.

 

To collect taxes, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.

 

Which has nothing to do with gun regulations.

 

The militia, yes. Private citizens who are not engaged in militia duties, no.

 

Then actually cite where such has been argued. Cite where the united state federal government has defended its firearm-related restrictions as being authorized under the general welfare clause. Cite where the clause has been argued as authorizing any particular government action outside of taxation. Cite where the united state supreme court has actually ruled in explicit terms that such is an appropriate and acceptable reading of the general welfare clause.

 

You can make your own...

 

Yep. Nothing about any power restricting the arms of the people was mentioned at all. The Constitution did say this about that - "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

I don’t need to. You would have to cite a ruling saying it isn’t so.

I have no need to. You would have to cite where they said the government can’t.

 

Gotta buy the parts. Commerce.

 

Factually incorrect. The argument being presented on the part of yourself is that the general welfare clause authorizes the united states federal government to regulate firearms. Since such is the argument being presented on the part of yourself, the obligation to cite such and demonstrate it to be factually correct is also on the part of yourself. Get to work on doing such, or recant the statement and admit to it having no basis in reality.

 

As @TOG 6 would say, "Still feeding the troll?"

 

Nope. You are claiming the power isn’t in the clauses I cited. You would need to show a court ruling showing this is incorrect.

 

The claim was initiated by yourself that the cited clause authorizes such. It does not. The so-called "general welfare clause" applies exclusively to matters of taxation and funding, and absolutely nothing else. There is not so much as one single ruling by the united state supreme court, which has ever held to the contrary on the matter. United States v Butler, Helvering v Davis, South Dakota v Dole, all specified that the "general welfare clause" applies exclusively to matters of taxation and funding, and nothing else.

 

Ok. Then you’ll have no trouble citing any court ruling which says it doesn’t.

 

No you don't. You can make your own parts too.

You don't even have to put a serial number on it.

 

The two places the General Welfare is mentioned in the Constitution do not enumerate powers to regulate firearms to the federal government. That’s fact. If you think otherwise, prove your case.

 

gotta buy the tools to do it. Commerce.

I know. But once you cross the line into manufacturing, which is easy to do, you are breaking federal law.

 

Of course it does.