American Gun Owners

[Lonestar]

So?

The US Government mandated that voting citizens buy a product or service from someone. The whole anti-HCR thing hinged on the Fed not being allowed to mandate that, regardless of whether or not commerce or taxing or defense was used as justification.

[Hauldren Collider]

So?

The US Government mandated that voting citizens buy a product or service from someone. The whole anti-HCR thing hinged on the Fed not being allowed to mandate that, regardless of whether or not commerce or taxing or defense was used as justification.

Constitutional law doesn't work that way. The justification matters. I can think of a few reasons why mandating the purchase of a firearm would be constitutional, but under the same justification, purchasing health insurance would not be.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Constitutional law doesn't work that way. The justification matters. I can think of a few reasons why mandating the purchase of a firearm would be constitutional, but under the same justification, purchasing health insurance would not be.

Yes. Hence the reason I queried under what pretense would the registration and regulation of the firearms be given.

[Lonestar]

That is how it is now, but was that the way it was 200+ years ago? "Canadians are about to overrun us! Who has a gun?"

Doesn't matter.

While an individual may have more rights then those specifically enumerated in the Constitution and it's amendments, said individual does not have the specifically enumerated rights removed because of local or state laws.

So, SCOTUS may eventually decide that every American has a right to affordable, quality healthcare, even if it isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution(by the by, the 9th Amendment is what allows for this line of thought). They cannot take away specifically mentioned rights, however. And the 2nd Amendment specifically says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Forget about the militia bit before it. Ultimately, that's irrelavent, the right is spelled out and is unambigious. You cannot infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Now, I'd argue that gun registration is not an infringment to the right to gun ownership, just like voter registration isn't.

The problem is that in places like NYC and New Orleans authorities used gun registries to confiscate firearms, even those that were not used in crimes. The scope of these activities has been exagerated IMO, but that it even happens is what makes some gun ownership advocates paranoid.

[Lonestar]

Constitutional law doesn't work that way. The justification matters. I can think of a few reasons why mandating the purchase of a firearm would be constitutional, but under the same justification, purchasing health insurance would not be.

Precedence matters too. I'd go so far as to say that precedence matters more, as we have based our legal system on English Common Law.

[Hauldren Collider]

Precedence matters too. I'd go so far as to say that precedence matters more, as we have based out legal system on English Common Law.

Uh, precedence matters, but if something uses a justification that doesn't work for the issue at hand, it isn't precedent.

[Lonestar]

Uh, precedence matters, but if something uses a justification that doesn't work for the issue at hand, it isn't precedent.

Except the Militia Act did act as a Tax and was going to have a major effect on commerce, even if it wasn't presented as such. There's a functionality test, and if it functions as a tax, then it's a freaking tax. In the case of the Militia act he citizens were being "taxed" to provide for the common defense.

My History can beat up your Politics had a pretty good episode about it a few weeks ago

[Felch]

I'd say that the Militia Act falls under the necessary and proper clause, given that Congress is authorized "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia."

Since there's no such enumerated power to provide for health care, the cases are dissimilar.