150 firearms you might not be allowed to have

Democrats have introduced legislation to ban 150 specific firearms. Not just “assault rifles” but also certain brands of pistols and shotguns.   I’ve posted the complete list after the jump.  Those of you who own guns might want to see if any of yours are on the list.  [Read more...]

The gun control package

The President has issued sweeping new gun control measures, a combination of Congressional proposals and 23 executive orders that go into effect immediately.  Details on exactly what the measures are, as well as a list of the executive orders are linked after the jump.  From The Washington Post:

“President Obama on Wednesday formally proposed the most expansive gun-control policies in generations and initiated 23 separate executive actions aimed at curbing what he called “the epidemic of gun violence in this country.” [Read more...]

Protect our rights with a police state?

My colleague Mark Mitchell feels some cognitive dissonance with the NRA’s response to gun violence in schools:

NRA president Wayne LaPierre called for a new initiative to place policemen in every school in America. It’s curious that in attempting to defend one right, the consequence is a dramatically increased police force. While I am doubtful that limiting the sale of certain guns will have any dramatic impact of gun violence, it is disappointing (though perhaps not surprising) that the best the NRA leadership can do is propose more policemen. And why stop at one policeman per school? With the size of many public schools, one police officer is simply inadequate. An officer in every hall might be a better plan. In short, we need a police state to protect our right to own all the guns we want? That’s the best idea the NRA has?

via NRA Proposes More Policemen | Front Porch Republic.

The founders’ individual mandates

It is unconstitutional to force individuals to buy health insurance, according to critics of Obamacare.  Not so, says Einer Elhauge of The New Republic, who points out that the founders who wrote the Constitution were not above passing individual mandates forcing citizens to buy things:

The founding fathers, it turns out, passed several mandates of their own. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

That’s not all. In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. Some tried to repeal this gun purchase mandate on the grounds it was too onerous, but only one framer voted to repeal it.

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional. Moreover, no one thought these past purchase mandates were problematic enough to challenge legally.

via Einer Elhauge: If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did The Founding Fathers Back Them? | The New Republic.

Wait a minute:  A mandate for everyone to possess firearms?  What does that  do to the liberal argument that the Second Amendment only allows for collective gun ownership in militias rather than personal possession?

I’m also curious about the status of these old laws.  Were they ever repealed?  Why, how, and when?  Would conservatives accept the insurance mandate in return for  Congress  re-instating the firearms mandate?

Anyway, back on topic, that the Washington and Adams administrations passed commerce mandates in no way proves they are Constitutional.

Packing heat in the pulpit

Another unusual law from my home sweet Oklahoma:

The state house is considering a bill to allow pastors in their churches to protect themselves like citizens do in their homes, vehicles and businesses.

A state house committee approved the legislation Tuesday that would make it legal to use deadly defensive force if there’s a fear of imminent death or bodily harm.

The representative who wrote the bill sited several cases of violence inside Oklahoma Churches in the last decade.

The bill now goes to the house floor for a vote.

via OK House Considers Bill Allowing Pastors To Use Guns In Church – NewsOn6.com – Tulsa, OK – News, Weather, Video and Sports – KOTV.com |.

So does that mean that pastors aren’t currently allowed to use firearms from the pulpit?  Or is this one of Oklahoma’s “making a statement” laws?  (Update:  Apparently the latter.)

Back in the Middle Ages, the clergy were forbidden to shed blood, so they would not use swords or lances.  So instead some of them, including the Popes leading their armies, would use maces to bash their enemy’s heads in.

Military chaplains, I believe, do not carry weapons.

What do you think of the prospect of pistol-packing pastors?  A little too law-oriented?  A temptation to deal with annoying parishioners in a non-pastoral way?  Prudential protection?

HT:  Ned


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X