Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Multiple shooting in Kennesaw, Georgia at FedEx location [View all]happyslug
(14,779 posts)Now, the State can make it illegal for Local Government to pass such a law, but if the State says nothing, then the local government can pass what they can. Enforcement would be easy, do as Alexander Hamilton suggested, call everyone into the City with their weapon, if they do not show up, go out and arrest them. The Government can DEMAND that you produce certain things on demand (the old Draft cards for example, or even a Driver's license if you are operating a motor Vehicle). Failure to produce is all that is needed for an conviction. Production of the item (for example a firearm or papers showing it is illegal for that person to own a firearm) stops the trial. Nice and simple solution that the Courts will uphold. This is why that rule of law was adopted for Slaves and Soldiers and Sailors who are discharged.
Now, you may say, what about the Right NOT to incriminate oneself? The problem is the law REQUIRES you to produce the item, lack of the item is what is illegal NOT the item itself. Thus failure to produce the item is NOT incriminating oneself. Incrimination requires a POSITIVE act, not a negative act. A law that REQUIRES you turn over something that is illegal (such as a firearm) and then production of that item is used to convict you, is forbidden under the Right NOT to incriminate oneself.
The Right not to Incriminate oneself has lead to some problems with Firearm laws. For example, it has been held a general requirement that all firearms are to be registered violates the Right NOT to incriminate oneself, unless it contains an exception in cases of people turning a weapon in for any purpose (including to register such weapon).
On the other hand, the Right NOT to Incriminate oneself does NOT forbid the Police from asking for blood, hair, fingerprints or other physical evidence from your body.
Just pointing out, the Courts have long viewed ways around the Right NOT to Incriminate oneself and ways around other restrictions in the Bill of Rights as NOT being violations of the Bill of Rights. The demand that someone produce something or being convicted of NOT having that thing is one way. In the case of a demand that people have weapons, is that such weapons be inspected by some authority upon demand (Which was the rule with the old Draft Card) or show up and be inspected (Hamilton's solution to checking the equipment of the Militia), these are all constitutional ways to make sure people are doing what is expected of them.
You have to remember, the two broadest power given to the Federal Government in the US Constitution is the right to regulate Interstate Commerce, and the right to form up and organize the Militia. The Second Amendment, in my opinion, is worded the way it is for they wanted to preserve the ABILITY of the people to form they own Militia units, when the Federal Government failed to do so, but also NOT to interfere with such Federal Organization of the Militia. Thus any requirement as to Militia Weapons will be upheld by the courts as long as it does NOT interfere with how the Federal Government organizes the Militia. I suspect this would include a demand that people own a weapon, and subject such weapons to reasonable inspections. Thus requiring a weapon would be constitutional.
Remember the same Congress that passed the Bill of Rights also passed the First Militia Act of the US, which did REQUIRE every male to own the assault rifle of that time period. The same act limited pistols to those units that had traditionally used pistols (the horse cavalry), but require all "White Males" (after the Post Civil War Amendment interpreted to mean all males) to own a musket. Thus how can Congress both REQUIRE people to own a firearm, and then say it is a violation of the Bill of Rights to require such men to provide evidence of such firearm? The answer is Congress NEVER intended such a situation and thus there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that prohibits, the Federal. State, or local government from making such a requirement. Thus it is constitutional.