Interesting article on constitutional problems with regulation of short-barreled long guns

It's well past time to deregulate pistols fitted for shoulder stocks.

A light-framed male, many females, the infirm all would benefit from the improved control of a sidearm with a stock, combined with the short barrel of a pistol. They'll be safer and more accurate shooters.

It's for the children.

It's time for Congress to get back to constitutionality. Hamilton (Federalist 84) stated that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the federal government was granted NO authority to legislate in any area covered by a Bill of Rights. Not a single grant of power allows the banning or regulation of things such as Arms. Properly the 2nd is latter law and supersedes prior tax law so taxing Arms is out. The restriction on excises, etc on things exported from a state includes to other states because each state is an individual nation within a Union although the SC has mistakenly claimed otherwise.

The federal government was granted 6 police/punishment powers. If the Framers decided it was necessary to explicitly grant the 6 police/punishment powers so that Congress could exercise some police authority, why is it not necessary for police powers such as those criminalizing Arms to be explicitly granted? If some clause in the Constitution makes blanket grants of police powers then the explicit grants are wholly superfluous and unnecessary and the Framers must be considered ignorant of the document they created. Article I Section 8 and Article III section 3 contain the explicit police power grants.

The 18th amendment proves that banning things is not a part of the powers of Congress since the amendment was required in order to ban alcohol. No amendment has been made to grant such authority over other things. When the Courts expand the powers of the government without approval (amendments), they are usurping power and imperiling the system of government implemented by the Framers.

Had those ratifying the Constitution in in 1789 believed that the federal government would exert such control over things internal to a state, no ratification would have taken place.

The sole reason state laws on firearms are so ubiquitous is because the SC in Barron (1833) erred in its judgment stating that the Bill of Rights bound only the federal government. No evidence of such a restriction can be found outside Madison's desire to place certain parts of the BoR within the original body of the Constitution, a desire which was repudiated by the manner in which the new articles were added to and made modifications of the original Constitution. Of the first 10 amendments ONLY the 1st explicitly directs itself to the federal government. None of the others have such a restriction. Under the supremacy clause, those amendment should have been held as the supreme law of the land binding all governments.

Lastly: Delegata potestas non potest delegari. Article I of the Constitution places ALL LEGISLATIVE power in Congress and grants Congress no authority to delegate those delegated powers elsewhere. Legislative powers are those of making laws, rules, and regulations. No other entity is constitutionally authorized to legislate even with bogus permission given by Congress. We the People placed that power in Congress and allowing any other entity to exercise that power is a breach of trust.

FWB, you are right, and you know you are.

Being right isn't enough. Structural constraints on government officials isn't enough. Yet at this moment, a la Claire Wolfe "we can't shoot the bastards yet", hoisting the black flag and slitting throats is too much.