Appeals court strikes down federal gun law as unconstitutional

US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-SealFrom HumanEvents.com:

by John Hayward

It might not get the news coverage it deserves with everything else going on at the moment, but the unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati against a federal gun law is a very big deal.  The court held that the federal ban on gun ownership by people who have been committed to a mental institution is an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.  Rulings of that caliber (if you’ll pardon the pun) don’t come down all that often.  The previous instance was the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling against Washington D.C.’s firearms ban in 2008, which those on both sides of the gun control debate would agree was a very big deal.

Today’s ruling was prompted by the efforts of 73-year-old Clifford Charles Tyler to purchase a gun.  His application for a permit was denied because he spent one month in a mental institution, in 1986, due to emotional problems following his divorce.  (According to the background material in the 6th Circuit Court decision, his ex-wife allegedly cleaned out his bank accounts and ran off with another man, leaving Tyler so despondent that he wept incessantly, couldn’t sleep, and had suicidal thoughts.  He was committed for treatment after his fearful daughters called the police.  He never did anything more violent than pound on his own head in despair.)

This is an interesting case as, currently in Fornicalia, state law allows law enforcement officers to confiscate those firearms in possession of persons taken into custody via 5150 W&I — and bars those committed for same from owning firearms.

Of interesting note:

The Wall Street Journal captures some reactions that suggest the Tyler case could have ramifications for other gun laws:

Lucas McCarthy, Mr. Tyler’s lawyer, called the ruling “a forceful decision to protect Second Amendment rights,” and said he hoped it that it would have “a significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun rights.”

[…] Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.

Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they are fit to own guns.

Unusual, these days, when a federal court goes against gun control parameters considering the current temper of the DC times.  Unanimous opinion of the three-member panel is here.

BZ

P.S.

Fornicalia Cop Note: I don’t necessarily disagree with the 5150 portion of CA law.  That said, please read the details of the case.  Tyler’s proscription was from one incident that occurred back in 1986, which would task anyone.

 

Ted Cruz spoke the truth, Monday, 9/23/2013 — and too few listened

Except me, and a handful of others.

First, the video; and if you don’t wish to plow through Harry Reid at the outset, read the transcript below — which took me more than two hours to transcribe myself.

From Senator Ted Cruz (R, Texas):

I’m going to suggest to you, Mr President, that the senate has not faced a more important debate in the short time that you and I have served in this institution.

No American wants a government shutdown.  I don’t want a government shutdown, no one on this side of the aisle wants a government shutdown.  The House of Representatives doesn’t want a government shutdown.

Mr President, five minutes ago the Senate could have acted to prevent a government shutdown.

The request that I promulgated to the majority leader was to pass the continuing resolution that the House of Representatives passed and if that had happened there would be no government shutdown.  A government shutdown would be taken off the table.

The specter that you and I see on the television screen every day, the countdown clock that is starting to appear (snaps fingers), would disappear.

But unfortunately the majority leader chose to object.

To object and to say no.  He would rather risk a government shutdown than act to prevent it.

Now why, again, the majority leader was quite candid.  Because he supports the law called Obamacare.

Now I would note a component of that also — one of the pieces that the House of Representatives passed was a law that has been called the Default Prevention Act.

The President of the United States has been dealing a fair amount of public speaking raising the prospect of a default on our debt.

And the House of Representatives acted boldly to include in their continuing resolution language that would say that the United States would never, ever, ever, default on its debt.  In the event that the debt ceiling is not raised, we will always pay our debt first.

I suspect every member of this body has spoken publicly about the calamity that would come from a default on the debt.  I think it is quite revealing that the majority leader explicitly referenced and objected to by name — taking a default off the table.

I think that’s unfortunate.  There is a tendency, in this town, towards brinksmanship.

Towards pointing to events that can cause instability and uncertainty and using them to try to get your way.

I wish the majority leader had been willing to step forward and say “I agree, number one, that the government should be funded.  We should not have a government shutdown.  And number two, that we should never ever ever even discuss a default on the debt.”

Had the majority leader simply said “I consent,” a default on the debt would have been taken permanently off the table.

Now why didn’t he?

We all know why he did not.

Because the majority leader embraces Obamacare.  I’m going to suggest to you, Mr President, that this body a little over three years passed Obamacare.  It passed it on a straight party line vote and in the time since it’s passed America has learned that it’s not working.

Americans all over this country are suffering because of Obamacare.  It’s the single biggest job-killer in America.  Every day we’re seeing more and more evidence that Obamacare is killing jobs, that it is hurting American workers who are struggling, that it is causing people to be forcibly put into part time work 29 hours a week, and it is jacking up premiums and it is causing more and more people who are struggling to lose their health insurance altogether.

Just today the New York Times reported that, because of Obamacare, quote, “insurers are significantly limiting the choices of doctors and hospitals available to consumers.”  That’s today in the newspaper.  USA Today reported on a new, quote, “family glitch,” that could cause up to a half million children to go without insurance coverage.  A headline in the Washington Post today read, quote, “one week away, Obamacare small business insurance exchanges not all ready for launch.”

And even the labor unions, that once championed Obamacare, are now publicly decrying it is a threat to the 40-hour work week which is the backbone of the American middle class.  That is the word of organized labor.

This law is hurting the American people.  And it’s why there is bi-partisan consensus outside of Washington DC, that we need to step up and stop it.

That would be the responsible thing for senators on both sides of the aisle to do.  To say: the same rules should apply to hard working American families that apply to big corporations and that apply to members of Congress.

We’ve seen the president unilaterally put in place exceptions for giant corporations and members of Congress.  Mr President, I would submit: hard working American families deserve that same exception.

So I think that it is unfortunate that the majority leader chose to object to continuing government, to preventing a shutdown, to taking a default off the table.  But I do think it is clarified to make clear, as the majority leader just did, that he is willing to risk a government shutdown.  He is willing to force, even, a government shutdown in order to insist that Obamacare is funded.

And Mr President, that leads to the second unanimous consent request that I put forward.  A simple request that every amendment on this Continuing Resolution be subject to 60 votes.

Now Mr President, everyone in this body knows that is not an unusual request in the United States Senate.  Amendments in this body are routinely subjected to 60 vote thresholds.  Indeed you and will both recall a few months ago, when this body was debating the issue of guns, a contentious issue, an emotional issue, an issue of great moment to this country, the majority leader agreed with the minority that every single amendment on the floor would be subject to a 60 vote threshold.

Those were the terms under which every aspect of the gun debate was debated.  I would note that one amendment that was submitted during that gun debate was the Grassley-Cruz Amendment.  It was the law enforcement amendment that put real teeth in going after felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns and put real teeth into forcing states to report mental health records so that we can prevent those with serious mental illnesses from illegally purchasing firearms.

I would note, Mr President, that the Grassley-Cruz bill received a majority vote in this institution.  A majority of senators voted for it including 9 Democrats.  It was the most comprehensive, it was the most bipartisan of the comprehensive legislation voted on in this body.

And yet it did not pass into law because the majority leader set a 60 vote threshold for every amendment.

I would suggest that Obamacare is no less important.

Obamacare is no less controversial, and Obamacare likewise should be subject to the same threshold.  If the majority leader believes Obamacare is good for America, if the Democrats in this body believe Obamacare is good for America, then I would encourage this body, let’s debate.

Not in the artificial sense in which we debate, one or two senators talking to an empty hall.  But in the real sense of making a case to each other and the American people, about whether this law is working or whether it is not.

Because everywhere I travel in the state of Texas and across the country, Americans come to me and raise the single biggest challenge they’re facing as Obamacare — it’s killing their jobs, it’s taking away their health care, it isn’t working.

Now we all know that three and a half years ago Obamacare was forced into law on a strict party line vote.

By straight brute force.

But it shouldn’t be funded that way.

That’s not the way a government should proceed.  That’s not the way this institution should proceed.  A 60 vote threshold does not require that the majority leader get a great many Republican votes.  But it does require that he get a few.  That he simply cannot do it with only the Democrats in this body.

This country will be better off if we work together to restore economic growth and to stop the incredible job loss that is coming from Obamacare.

In fact, regarding a 60 vote threshold, here’s what the learned majority leader has had to say.

Quote, “for more than 200 years the rules of the senate have protected the American people and rightfully so.  The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and often times the minority.  I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks.  But I recognize this requirement as a tool that serves the long term interests of the senate and the American people in our country.”

I agree with Majority Leader Reid.  I agree that 60 vote thresholds ensure that we behave not just on a partisan matter but in a way that brings us together and given the challenges coming from Obamacare.

I believe that nothing is hurting the American people more.  Nothing is hurting the economy more.  Nothing is damaging jobs more — than Obamacare.

Given the majority leader’s objection raised today, the path the majority intends to go is now clear.  It is clear for Democrats, it is clear for Republicans.  It is clear for the world to see.

The majority leader has stated that it is his intention to force a vote to fund Obamacare.  And to do so using just 51 votes.  To do so on what could be a straight party line vote and in all likelihood would be a straight party line vote.

Mr President, I would suggest that is not a responsible course of action.

And it’s not a course of action that I think Republicans should acquiesce to.

If it is the majority leader’s intent to fund Obamacare using just 51 votes, then I would submit to every Republican in this body, it is our obligation to our constituents to do everything we can to prevent the majority leader from funding Obamacare, with just 51 votes.

Any member of this body that votes for cloture on this bill will be voting to allow the majority leader to fund Obamacare on 51 votes.

I think that vote’s a mistake.  I think that vote dis-serves our constituents.  I think that vote hurts the people of America.

Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I do not disagree with a word of Senator Ted Cruz.

I’ll submit that those were three hours well-spent in transcription from a Samsung Galaxy Note II phone.

BZ