Gun Ban is Constitutional

According to this, the federal appeals court has determined that states may legislate the type of firearms you may own.  For what it’s worth, they are right.

The 2nd amendment to the Constitution is binding on the Federal government.  It is not binding on the states.  Many states also have state constitutions.  Virginia, for example, specifically recognizes an individual right to own arms.

No constitution grants unrestricted rights to weapons.  Therefore, a state may pass legislation to restrict certain brand names, or even something as stupid as a color or firearm.  The test for constitutionality would be, “does this law make the mere possession of firearms a criminal act or does this legislation make firearms ownership so unattainable that it effectively restricts the rights of the individual.

Hypothetical case 1:  If the state of Bloatsylvania passed a law that regulated all handguns must be 9mm para and all other forms of handguns less than 12” in length shall be confiscated, that law would not be in violation of the constitution.  It is simply regularizing a firearms standard.  The wisdom of doing so is not relevant.

Hypothetical case 2:  The City of New Bloat passes a law requiring gun owners to pass a competency test.  The test is only conducted by the police department once a year and classes are limited to the first 5 people who apply.  The cost of the class is $5000.  This would violate the constitution because it would effectively create a barrier to the private ownership of firearms.

Hypothetical case 3:  The Nation of ‘Murica passes a law in congress that declares the 2nd amendment only applied to muzzle loaded black powder firearms.  This would be unconstitutional since it would effectively prevent access by the people to EFFECTIVE firearms.

Arguments about the militia are not relevant.

Arguments about the stupidity of magazine size restrictions are irrelevant.

Arguments about your demands to own a specific brand name or design are irrelevant.

The Constitution does not guarantee you can buy any gun you want, or even any gun you can afford.  Nor can the constitution demand that new gun technology will be created and compete favorably in the future marketplace.

The Heller decision is irrelevant (and wrongly decided).

Military utility is irrelevant.

What is relevant:

1.  You have a God Given right to self preservation. If you are an atheist you don’t.
2. The US Constitution recognizes that you have a right to possess the means to that preservation in the form of effective firearms.  As such, the Constitution forbids the Federal government from infringing on that right.
3. Some States also respect that right, others do not.
4. Regulating the brand names features or styles of firearms is not regulating firearms, it is regulating commerce, in exactly the same way government at various levels do all the time.
5. The check and balance on this system is to vote out politicians who try to disarm you and replace them with people who won’t.
6. The federal appeals court is not empowered to decide if a state law is a good idea.  They have a very limited scope of authority.  Despite many courts overstepping their authority, their authority is limited to deciding if the law violates the federal constitution.

In this case, the courts decided rightly, but they did it for all the wrong reasons and even when the law was on their side, they just couldn’t help themselves.  They obviously upheld the law because they agreed with it’s purpose, not because of the merits of the case.  It makes me wonder why we bother to have Senate confirmation of judges when there is a 50-50 chance of getting a better judge by randomly selecting people at Walmart.