Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

Seriously?

That's your reply?

 

Seriously? You can't answer my very direct question? LOL

 

Commerce, general welfare.

- - - Updated - - -

Commerce and general welfare.

 

I can answer but I expected some measure of intellectual integrity from you (I know, I'm a hopeless idealist).

If such a clause that allows the feds to write gun law existed, it would have been quite simple for you to cite it . . .
It would have been even easier and much more honest for you to admit that no such clause exists.
You chose to do neither and instead (understandably) deflect.

I will stipulate that many current federal laws on the private citizen's acquisition, possession and use of firearms exist and some have passed constitutional challenge.

I strongly believe that the proper challenge has not yet been mounted against some of those laws and when that happens those laws will fall.

I also believe that the feds have successfully argued that certain modern conditions demand that a legitimate federal interest exists to have some of those laws -- thus those laws are deemed not an infringement.

That some pass constitutional muster does not mean all are legitimate.

You see, the question isn't, "is the 2nd Amendment's 'shall not be infringed' a myth since its inception"?

The question is, what makes a a federal firearms law constitutionally legitimate?

That question can only be answered with an understanding of the foundational constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights (which you deny and disparage at every opportunity) and knowledge of the ambit of the delegated powers of government.

And, since it is a singular question of legitimate power, the question of constitutionality can and should be answered without much (if any) reference or reliance on the 2nd Amendment -- because, as SCOTUS has said again and again and again, the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus it is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence . . .

.

- - - Updated - - -

Never read the Federalist Papers have you?

 

LOL general welfare-complete failure. that was related to the taxing authority

what part of "commerce among the states" was intended to prevent joe citizen from making a machine gun in his own state for use in that state or for that matter=preventing a farmer from growing wheat for his own use on his own farm

 

Sure. Great bit of reading. Not in any way legal documents, but still good reading.

- - - Updated - - -

Bothboth clauses give the federal government authority to regulate firearms.

 

You asked out of ignorance.

You didn't know that it doesn't matter.

The right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment which means the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

Please explain why you invent such impact for words that the right to arms does not in any manner depend upon.

 

No I asked directly, plainly and openly. If the answer does not matter then answer it. But you are absolutely terrified of the answer. Don't answer it. It must be torture for you and I am not that cruel

 

do you believe that was an honest use of the CC

find me a federal gun control law based on the general welfare clause

 

The Federalist Papers explain the extent of those clauses . . . SCOTUS examines them for guidance on original intent.

If the argument is that anything that passes in interstate commerce is under Congress' control and that gives Congress undefined and seemingly indisputable power to regulate the personal arms of the private citizen rendering the 2nd Amendment meaningless, why can't a similar interpretation be argued to conjure powers for Congress to restrict the press and speech?

 

Why should something that has zero impact frighten me?

SCOTUS has been consistent that the words of the 2nd don't matter . . . I can't fake it and make them matter.

 

Keep talking but whatever you do....don't answer the question. Lol

 

Refrain from posting any further. Nothing of legitimate discussion is being contributed. Nothing is being engaged in except attacking other members.

 

Is "Congress shall make no law" supposed to be taken literally?

 

yes

prohibited persons who can not own a firearms.

 

right. but they are in no way legal documents.

press and speech isn't commerce. And both clauses are applicable. It doesn't give congress unlimited power. They are bound by the 14th amendment to provide a compelling governmental interest served in any infringement they pass.

 

you are wrong-having actually prepared indictments of such people we had to assert the firearm moved in interstate commerce.

and you if you think that the commerce clause was actually intended to allow congress to ban guns in light of the views of congress, there is no helping your ability to understand what the founders intended

 

Congress goes further than that in controlling guns. A gun made, sold, and used within the same state is not "interstate commerce" and shouldn't fall under federal control.

 

Absolutely not. You see....that is how you answer a question directly

 

I am not wrong. Both clauses apply, in the manner I stated.

Both clauses give congress the authority. General welfare more so.

- - - Updated - - -

General welfare

 

Meaning the Federal government can do whatever they want because they think it's good for us?

 

Sure, why not, seems safe enough. They got elected, doesn't that make them so much smarter than the rest of us?

 

If they can demonstrate a compelling interest, and it passes strict scrutiny if challenged in court, yes.

 

Not if I compare my budget surplus to their deficit.

- - - Updated - - -

So the Constitution is worthless in your eyes. Got it.

 

You understand that compelling interest and strict scrutiny is how the constitution works in practice....right?