Saiga Import, 922r and ATF Confusion

[vanveen 0]

Nice to see another on here who enjoys mises.org.

 

Just a point of clarification when it comes to referring to a "living document" as some on here seem to convoluting two things. There is an ability to change a document and there is the ability to reinterpret a document.

 

To me a living document (and I don't think I am alone in this definition) is one where the text remains unchanged but its interpretation changes in time. Thus if the Constitution is living means that it can mean anything depending on what those with "authority" decides that it means.

 

Living documents are dangerous because they mean nothing. Who would enter into a contract with someone if they thought that the other party would treat it as "living" and reinterpret it to mean whatever they want. See my last paragraph before the aside.

 

Certainly the Constitution may be amended but Congress doesn't bother with that anymore because it is too difficult and slow so they just ignore it or use tortured "living" interpretations to justify their actions.

 

This whole discussion is why I don't believe that any form of government is conducive to a free society. Pelosi is elected by a small number of people in CA but used her position to influence others and use the guns of government to help enact policies that are unpopular. Well she is no longer Speaker but the point could be made by someone on the left that Boehner has undue influence and act against the interest of those aligned with Pelosi et al. Most of this whole discussion is centered on some group of people trying to use the implicit or explicit threat of violence via government to have their pet policies enacted.

 

An aside:

I would like to suggest as an interesting exercise that those who advocate for law and order may want to try thinking about things in terms of truth and justice. The latter not being synonymous with the former. Even if you don't change your mind, it is a different perspective from which to observe and think about events/positions/etc. I know that when I changed my focus three years ago it was really weird but today I have radically different viewpoints from those that I held most of my life.

 

Yes, it's easy to pick on the Democrats, because as we all know, they won't fight back; but here's something you might well support which is entirely unconstitutional, but was passed and then signed into law by president Bush. DOMA, or the defense of marriage act contains the following provisions:

 

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

 

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

The first part is particularly disturbing because it directly violates the Constitution, Article IV, Section 1:

 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other state..."

 

Notice how DOMA directly violates this clause. Now I'm not saying you're a bigot, but often people who are for limited government only want it in so far as it affects them, but are more than willing to take others rights away; birth control, gay rights, and immigration to list a few. Tell me DOMA should be repealed on the basis of it's unconstitutionality, and I'll fully believe you're an originalist.

And yes, it is possible that by it's nature, as a living document, an activist court could produce rulings that some find undesirable; and this in fact happens all the time. I refer you to Bush v. Gore most recently, but for some balance how about Roe v. Wade, Brown v. the Board of Education, or Griswold v. Connecticut to come back to it. These rulings anger some, but are cheered on by others, and I have to imagine you support some of these and despise others. I'd be glad to know I'm wrong.

Truth and justice are both abstract concepts, which man has struggled to define since we discovered our higher cognitive functions. If you are suggesting that you are somehow fully enlightened as to their meaning, than respectfully I choose not to believe you. Whose truth and justice do you refer to anyways? When I feel the government has wronged me, I don't curse it's existence; I choose instead to recognize it's impact on my life, and cash in on my ability to take part in it's functioning.

Finally, if you truly believe gov. is unnecessary, I ask you not to refer to the Constitution at all in the future, as it is the very foundation of our government.

[Xitesmai 1]

@tktm - The declaration does use the word Creator, if your interpretation of that word is God, then that is your right...however it is your interpretation of Creator, mine is different...not wrong or right, just different...

 

A living document is a document that can be edited or changed by the people who reference it...in this case the people of the United States, via representatives elected to office. That is not to say that the American people dont make mistakes, or change their mind...again I refer to the 18th and 21st Amendment. Just google "living document" and see the results...that is what I mean by a living document...

 

As far as the commerce clause goes, would you not agree that by your logic, you yourself are interpreting the the phrase "to regulate"...I cited the defintions from Johnsons Dictionary that proves that the term was used in alternate ways in 1780...thus I'm interpreting the Commerce clause to read " to control"...that is my interpretation and the interpretation of the supreme court, congress and the presidency...and unless you had the opportunity to ask Gouverneur Morris what exactly he meant by the words...you are interpreting too...all law is interpreted after it is written...just walk into any lawyers office...what do you find on the walls...books by the score...books that contain other cases for precedence, cases through which the law was interpreted by lawyers, judges and juries. The walls contain Supreme Court opinion papers...if the law was not interpreted then there would be no need for case law...

 

I think you mean to suggest that I have a love of statism? Again I will say that in all things there must be balance...the lack of any oversight or lets say an extreme anti-statism is by definition anarchy...

 

 

@physicsnerd - Pelosi was elected by more than just "a small" number of people...while the 8th district of CA may be small (>600,00) , its percentages that count...and more than half of those people have seen fit to keep her in office since 1993...Now I dont agree with alot of her agenda...and in reality her agenda is that of her party...as minority whip its her job to push Democratic ideals and the Democratic Agenda...just as its John Boehners job to push Republic Ideals and Agendas...as far as compromise goes...thats been the nature of our government since its founding (almost)... one could look at the Federalist and Anti-Federalists of 1789...and since then there have been two (sometimes more), parties trying to push their own agenda, and in the end realizing that compromise is the only way to get things done...

 

And there is indeed a difference between law and order and truth and justice...99% of the time they have nothing to do with each other...

[tktm 13]

[Xitesmai 1]

[tktm 13]

.....

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

The first part is particularly disturbing because it directly violates the Constitution, Article IV, Section 1:

 

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other state..."

 

Notice how DOMA directly violates this clause. Now I'm not saying you're a bigot, but often people who are for limited government only want it in so far as it affects them, but are more than willing to take others rights away; birth control, gay rights, and immigration to list a few. Tell me DOMA should be repealed on the basis of it's unconstitutionality, and I'll fully believe you're an originalist. ".....

 

 

While you did not address this statement to me, I still find it interesting how government uses marriage to intertwine with every single part of our life. I don't think its possible to fill out any government form with listing your married state. They use marriage to determine how much money to force out of us; they use it to determine who they will give our property when we die. Heck the government even tells us who we can and can not marry; they can even probably force us to marry someone under the commerce clause. But as long as we have a good king in charge maybe they won't do that to us just yet. How did we ever give up such control of our lives to be determined by the force of others. After all, marriage was (and still is to me) is between a man, a woman, and God; how in the world did we ever let the government get involved? Maybe it was just "common sense" regulation, the same type you want to put on gun owners. The same type you cite in drivers licensing.

 

I wager some one came up with driver licenses by saying its just common sense just like marriage licenses- nothing bad could ever come from up. After all a driver's license is just a piece of paper that shows we passed a simple test, surely it could never be used against us or vastly grow the power of government; I'm sure thats how the discussion went. Of course, today, you have to have a "drivers licence" even if you don't drive and don't own a car. If you are asked for a drivers license and you don't show it, you could be arrested (even if you are no where near a car). Its near impossible to engage in economic activity with out a driver's license. Hell you can't even get on a plane these days without a driver's license. And lets not forget that because of driver's licenses, that people now claim that "driving is a privledge granted by government"; and its very quickly turning into that "travel is a privledge granted by government". All that mess from a little bit of paper that is supposed to only show that you passed a simple test. Its obvious that the problem is that simple "common sense" regulations are more about exerting force / control and destroying the very thing which is being regulated. That is the same thing you wish to do to us.

 

I asked before if there was an "societal problem" that could be solved with less government control and power. You brought up gay marriage, well here is a simple solution: lets let marriage go back to being a free choice made between people, themselves and God. Shrink government by rightly removing any interaction it has with marriage and simultaneous restore our right to associate or disassociate with whomever we please. Some one once said that regulation is the power to destroy. The destruction need not occur instantly but eventually it will. Gun control is not about guns it is about people control.

Edited February 21, 2011 by tktm

[TEXASAK73 13]

In Texas you must take and pass a hunter safety course before you go hunt or buy a hunting license. This course covers firearms safety. I guess we are ahead of all the 2nd tier states.

 

You can buy a hunting license without a hunter safety course in Texas.No restriction on the purchase of the license.

 

All would be hunters better have their hunter safety card if you plan to hunt legally.

 

Those that are under the age of 18 must have the course in order to hunt alone.If with a parent or adult guardian the hunter safety course is not required provided that the adult guardian or parent is certified.

 

The child must have a hunting license with his or her name on the licence.The parent or adult guardian must have a license as well in their possession.