If There’s A Constitutional Right To Own Firearms, Is There Also A Right To Sell Them?
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 9 months ago
Well, the obvious answer is yes, but just because it’s obvious doesn’t mean that pinheaded judges get it.
Teixeira has petitioned the Supreme Court to review his case. In this amicus brief, Cato Institute, the Millennial Policy Center, and the Independence Institute seek to persuade the Supreme Court to take it.
The brief goes deeply into the history of ownership and commerce relating to firearms, back to the colonial era. To support its stance, the Ninth Circuit relied on laws from that time that put restrictions on sales of guns and gunpowder to Indians, but the brief argues that such laws were exceptions to “the general right of firearms commerce.” Early Americans and certainly the Founders understood that, with but a few precise limitations, the people were to be as free to buy and sell arms and ammunition as they were to buy and sell anything else.
The notion that the founders would have wanted government control over who could sell guns or anything else, and to whom they could make the sale, is ridiculous on its face. Anyone who believes that simply doesn’t believe the complaints the founders proffered: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”
But then, perhaps they don’t teach American history in schools of law any more.
On February 20, 2018 at 1:40 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
Re: “But then, perhaps they don’t teach American history in schools of law any more.”
You will not only find very little history taught in law schools, but very little of it taught in grades K-12 or in most colleges and universities. I have it on reliable authority from several friends who have attended law school – that the constitution is largely absent from the course of instruction, save perhaps as an afterthought. Much lip-service is paid to that document, but its contents figure surprisingly little in how future attorneys are educated.
On February 20, 2018 at 9:31 am, Fred said:
Ask any lawyer, even a ‘constitutional’ lawyer if they were taught the constitution in law school. They will say no, that they start with case law. They also largely ignore laws of the Congress.
No foundation, no presumption of supreme law, no basis from which to start just whatever the courts say is MADE LAW. That’s what they teach.
On February 20, 2018 at 9:51 am, John said:
In point of fact, part of the reason for the Revolutionary War was because the crown saying colonists could only buy tea from them. That’s called government interference in free trade.
Imposing restrictions on firearm commerce is precisely the same thing.
On February 20, 2018 at 10:13 am, Randolph Scott said:
How about we all pray for a large fizzure to happen along the San Andreas fault which causes kalifornia and the 9th Circuit to break off of our continent and float away into liberal mental illness land.
On February 21, 2018 at 4:08 pm, Jack Crabb said:
“Ask any lawyer, even a ‘constitutional’ lawyer if they were taught the constitution in law school. They will say no, that they start with case law. They also largely ignore laws of the Congress.
No foundation, no presumption of supreme law, no basis from which to start just whatever the courts say is MADE LAW. That’s what they teach.”
This is a huge problem, isn’t it, Fred? Case law is a joke. A horrible, horrible joke.
On February 21, 2018 at 8:54 pm, jim said:
What about people selling guns to native americans and other beligerents; some had an issue with it, but it happened anyway. One big reason Custer got his butt kicked, besides being stupid and arrogant, was the cheyenne, Lakota and Arapaho were better armed, with repeating weapons. Fast and Furious anyone???