In a committee meeting today, there was an interesting exchange between senators Cruz of Texas and Feinstein of California. The subject was Feinstein's bill to ban assault weapons, large gun magazines and otherwise restrict gun rights.
Cruz asked Feinstein if she thought that Congress could enact limits on other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. For example, could Congress limit free speech to only certain books or limit the right to be free from unreasonable searches to only certain classes of people?
It was a fair question, to say the least. Feinstein wants to limit the right to bear arms to only certain types of weapons. The Supreme Court has already held that unusual weapons can be so limited; for example, no one has a "right" to carry a Stinger anti-aircraft missile. The Court also made clear, however, that weapons that were in common use by the population could not be limited. That should mean that the AR-15, the weapon used in Newtown, which has been sold by the millions in the USA, cannot be limited.
Feinstein's response was extremely interested. First she told Cruz not to lecture her because she has been in Congress for 20 years and was a mayor before that. Then she said that she has seen the bodies of people killed by these types of weapons. Then she said that Congress was not prohibiting weapons but rather was exempting other weapons.
Cruz did not give up at that point. He understood that exempting some weapons from a prohibition means that the rest are prohibited, so he asked Feinstein if it would be okay for Congress to ban all books except those which it exempted or to authorize unlimited searches of all people except those who Congress exempted.
Feinstein gave in and actually answered the question at that point. Of course, she first complained that Cruz was lecturing her again. Then she said that it was only up to Congress to pass the laws and that the Supreme Court could then decide if the law was constitutional.
The truth is that Feinstein, who has been the foremost advocate for gun control in Congress, has no answer to Cruz' questions. The Supreme Court has already made clear that Congress cannot bar weapons that are in common use. It can place regulations on the sale of such weapons, but it cannot bar them. Before someone leaves a comment about this, let me add that the Court also says that Congress can bar felons or the mentally ill from weapon ownership. Of course, those laws already exist. Indeed, had the existing law been enforced properly by the federal government, the massacres in Newtown and Aurora together with the shootings in Arizona that killed 6 and left Congresswoman Giffords gravely injured would not have happened.
Wouldn't it be nice if the federal government could focus on actually enforcing the laws already there rather than spending time considering unconstitutional laws that won't help.
Cruz asked Feinstein if she thought that Congress could enact limits on other rights contained in the Bill of Rights. For example, could Congress limit free speech to only certain books or limit the right to be free from unreasonable searches to only certain classes of people?
It was a fair question, to say the least. Feinstein wants to limit the right to bear arms to only certain types of weapons. The Supreme Court has already held that unusual weapons can be so limited; for example, no one has a "right" to carry a Stinger anti-aircraft missile. The Court also made clear, however, that weapons that were in common use by the population could not be limited. That should mean that the AR-15, the weapon used in Newtown, which has been sold by the millions in the USA, cannot be limited.
Feinstein's response was extremely interested. First she told Cruz not to lecture her because she has been in Congress for 20 years and was a mayor before that. Then she said that she has seen the bodies of people killed by these types of weapons. Then she said that Congress was not prohibiting weapons but rather was exempting other weapons.
Cruz did not give up at that point. He understood that exempting some weapons from a prohibition means that the rest are prohibited, so he asked Feinstein if it would be okay for Congress to ban all books except those which it exempted or to authorize unlimited searches of all people except those who Congress exempted.
Feinstein gave in and actually answered the question at that point. Of course, she first complained that Cruz was lecturing her again. Then she said that it was only up to Congress to pass the laws and that the Supreme Court could then decide if the law was constitutional.
The truth is that Feinstein, who has been the foremost advocate for gun control in Congress, has no answer to Cruz' questions. The Supreme Court has already made clear that Congress cannot bar weapons that are in common use. It can place regulations on the sale of such weapons, but it cannot bar them. Before someone leaves a comment about this, let me add that the Court also says that Congress can bar felons or the mentally ill from weapon ownership. Of course, those laws already exist. Indeed, had the existing law been enforced properly by the federal government, the massacres in Newtown and Aurora together with the shootings in Arizona that killed 6 and left Congresswoman Giffords gravely injured would not have happened.
Wouldn't it be nice if the federal government could focus on actually enforcing the laws already there rather than spending time considering unconstitutional laws that won't help.
No comments:
Post a Comment