Adam B presented us with one of the most recent decisions by the Supreme Court on the reinterpretation of laws regarding "straw purchases" of firearms.
Now many here are well aware of my support of the entire "Bill of Rights" including the 2nd Amendment.
While this case has limited bearing on the 2nd A. It was the "discussion" in his diary that has prompted this diary.
It seems that the "discussion" in the diary thread was focusing on how Scalia was being obtuse, obfuscating and dishonest in his dissenting opinion.
What I find truly odd is that many here that cannot or will not understand what just happened and how truly dangerous it is.
The Supreme Court, by 1 vote, just gave our government the authority to ignore the intent, purpose and the historical enforcement of any law passed by Congress.
To wit, the statute in question hinged on the term, "straw purchaser", which at the time it was passed, it was meant to give LEO authority to go after people whom knowingly bought firearms for those whom were not lawfully allowed to own, possess, use or trade said.
Today, the intent and will of Congress is moot.
Sadly, I must concur with the dissent Scalia offers:
After Congress passed the Act in 1968, ATF’s initial position was that the Act did not prohibit the sale of a gun to an eligible buyer acting on behalf of a third party (even an ineligible one).But in this specific case, the "agent" or "straw purchaser" and the person whom the firearm was being bought for, were both legally allowed to own the firearms in question.
If historical enforcement isn't the gauge we use to establish the intent of Congress, then what is?
I know only one thing here, the law, is now and forevermore, arbitrary, not just it's enforcement. The enforcement part we could have dealt with but when the law itself becomes malleable, then it means absolutely nothing.
And Scalia's rantings aside. I must point out in the much debated and hated Heller Decision, whereby he wrote the majority opinion, he did say this:
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.He talks out of both sides of his mouth, it would seem. If the intent of Congress is immaterial in the Heller Case, then why should it matter in this case?
FYI, on a side note. It is because of the various drafts and the Congressional Debate on the 2nd Amendment's wording why I believe it is and always has been an individual unalienable right that they were attempting to protect. In a nutshell, their intent is something our side has always said that was the final arbiter of any law or statute, not how it's written.
When did we change our stripes again?