I don't think you're overlooking a thing. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear that the federal government has absolutely no say in the matter.

Let me start by saying... I agree, they don't have that power.

The most recent opposing view is that it is left up to the states and locals. The feds can't control this at all, but the locals and states can crush your right to bear arms as they see fit. Don't worry, both parties equally use the 10th amendment whenever they have an itch that needs scratching.

Jason, if you don't mind, please consider how the 14th A. changed the scope of the 2nd Amendment where the states are concerned.

To begin with, the USSC's so-called doctrine of selective incorporation actually has no basis in constitutional law, IMO. The proof of the pudding is this. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had officially indicated to his colleagues in the HoR that the 14th A. applied *all* the Constitution's privileges and immunities to the states, not just those contained in the BoR.

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

And where the 2nd A. is concerned, note that page referenced above also shows that Bingham included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments (middle column) as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states.

So given that the lawmakers who made the 14th A. understood that the 14th A. incorporated all the Constitution's privileges and immunities to the states, bored justices perhaps concocted the idea of selective incorporation to get a little attention. I don't know.

But I must also emphasize another thing that Bingham had explained concerning the 14th A. and the states. Bingham had noted that the 14th A. takes away no powers from the states. See for yourself.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States **no rights** (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"**No right** (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

So unlike Congress who has no constitutionally delegated power to regulate civilian firearms, the states still have power to regulate such firearms, although that power is now limited by powers delegated to Congress by the 14th A.

The irony of this, of course, is that Congress is expected to protect personal gun rights from being infringed on by the states. As evidenced by this web site, the states are now trying to protect personal gun rights from corrupt Congress.

What a mess! :^(

While I appreciate your input, with all due respect, I think that you might have missed my point about delegated powers versus the 2nd A., not that my observations are correct. Please consider the following expanded explanation about Congress’s nonexistent powers to regulate civilian arms.

First, based on my understanding of powers expressly delegated to the federal government, the only constitutional statutes that give Congress the power to regulate arms are several clauses towards the end of Section 8 of Article I. And it’s important to note that these clauses concern Congress’s power over the US armed forces, not civilian arms.

In fact, even before the 2nd A. was ratified, it was argued by people such as James Madison that a federal BoR was unnecessary. In other words, because of Congress’s limited power, an amendent like the 2nd A. was “redundant” because the states never expressly delegated power to Congress to regulate civilian arms in the first place.

But I’ll admit that, before I wised up to the idea of delegated powers, I sometimes wondered why the Founders didn’t include firearms among the types of laws that the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making. But when you think about it, since the control of the armed forces had already been delegated to Congress, the Founders couldn’t very well prohibit Congress from regulating arms altogether since Congress has the job of governing the military.

And this gets us into a problem where modern interpretations of the BoR are concerned, particularly interpretations by inept lawmakers and judges, so-called public servants who don’t understand the constitutional principal of delegated federal powers.

More specifically, when people don’t understand the idea of delegated powers, people tend to misinterpret constitutional statutes like the 1st and 2nd Amendments, IMO. After all, when gun-control people who don’t understand delegated powers compare the prohibited powers of Congress in the 1st A. to the mere, "shall not be infringed," of the 2nd A., they may come to the following seemingly reasonable, but nonetheless uninformed conclusion. Since the 2nd A. doesn’t expressly prohibit Congress from making certain types of laws like the 1st A. does, then Congress surely must have some leeway in regulating arms.

Again, the problem with such a conclusion is this. Although Congress can authorize firearms regulations based on Congress’s constitutionally delegated military responsibilities, Congress has nonetheless not been delegated any power to regulate civilian firearms, with or without the 2nd Amendment. Corrections welcome.

The Constitution tells the government what they can not do but since when has this stopped Obama and his Comrades formdoing what ever they damn well please. He has signed our rights away to own fire arms already when he signed EO #12425 which give Interpol the power to confinscate weapons without a warrant they can come into your home for what ever reason they want and take any gun they find in your home and you have no recource and as I said they do not need a warrant

While I appreciate your input, with all due respect, I think that you might have missed my point about delegated powers versus the 2nd A., not that my observations are correct. Please consider the following expanded explanation about Congress’s nonexistent powers to regulate civilian arms.

First, based on my understanding of powers expressly delegated to the federal government, the only constitutional statutes that give Congress the power to regulate arms are several clauses towards the end of Section 8 of Article I. And it’s important to note that these clauses concern Congress’s power over the US armed forces, not civilian arms.

In fact, even before the 2nd A. was ratified, it was argued by people such as James Madison that a federal BoR was unnecessary. In other words, because of Congress’s limited power, an amendent like the 2nd A. was “redundant” because the states never expressly delegated power to Congress to regulate civilian arms in the first place.

But I’ll admit that, before I wised up to the idea of delegated powers, I sometimes wondered why the Founders didn’t include firearms among the types of laws that the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making. But when you think about it, since the control of the armed forces had already been delegated to Congress, the Founders couldn’t very well prohibit Congress from regulating arms altogether since Congress has the job of governing the military.

And this gets us into a problem where modern interpretations of the BoR are concerned, particularly interpretations by inept lawmakers and judges, so-called public servants who don’t understand the constitutional principal of delegated federal powers.

More specifically, when people don’t understand the idea of delegated powers, people tend to misinterpret constitutional statutes like the 1st and 2nd Amendments, IMO. After all, when gun-control people who don’t understand delegated powers compare the prohibited powers of Congress in the 1st A. to the mere, "shall not be infringed," of the 2nd A., they may come to the following seemingly reasonable, but nonetheless uninformed conclusion. Since the 2nd A. doesn’t expressly prohibit Congress from making certain types of laws like the 1st A. does, then Congress surely must have some leeway in regulating arms.

Again, the problem with such a conclusion is this. Although Congress can authorize firearms regulations based on Congress’s constitutionally delegated military responsibilities, Congress has nonetheless not been delegated any power to regulate civilian firearms, with or without the 2nd Amendment. Corrections welcome.

Where in teh Constitution do they have the power to do most of what they do? simple answer is - they don't. But the courts don't see it that way! I guess they're trying to work within the system a little to get a good ruling on the books. I'm not holding my breath

I'm not sure we are working within the system in relying excursively on the courts to do the right thing all the while giving them defacto dictatorial powers.

You're preaching to the choir about the constitution not giving them the right. The problem is the opposition says the constitution doesn't fully outline everything the feds are allowed to do, that's not possible. Although I disagree with the opposing point of view, it nonetheless is their "rational" logic which leads them to believe the constitution is a "living and breathing" document. Maybe I'm crazy, but that's what amendments are for. Why do we have those in the first place if it isn't to allow for change? haha

What we can do is have our states not assist the federal government with information that would make their job easier. It could be so difficult to collect the taxes that it might make enforcement impractical and compell them to give up.

Good thinking Tim, This Carrot and stick approach could work both ways, we need to make the Feds more depended upon the States. Unfortunately the shear number of states and the fact that any one of them can act out of line at any time, a fact that serves to protect our individual liberty, makes any such lever on the federal government at best look like nullification.

As a matter of fact we already have many such levers in the form of practical law enforcement, we do need to expand them in the field of direct tax collection in-order to rob the federal government of the unconstitutional power they have usurped to the execution of the rights of the people using the power to tax such a people directly.

But in creating a solution to this problem, we must remember the historic experiences, how will we compel the States to pay at all? Clearly they must be allowed to set some limited general terms for direct taxation, with the States implementing it, and individual state based accounts setup to roll over surpluses and dept.

Such a individual state based system would as a matter of record better enable us to restore the vital Sync between the power to tax and the power to spend money.