It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by NuclearHead
I think we all agree that depends on the type of crime committed. I don't think someone should be banned from buying weapons because he/she was charged with fraud or some non violent crime. [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by sy.gunson
I think the US system could be tweaked to require all owners of firearms to hold a license first and for there to be certain qualifications to obtaining that license.
For example the Constitution really talks about the right to bare arms in respect to the right to form militias. Why then does the US Government NOT require all militias to become registered organisations and require all gun owners to become registered members of militias ?
posted by who knew
Your response echos my issue with our current legal state though. You have a handful of laws that over the course of time now fills volumes with amendments and clauses. With each new law, I feel we are stepping further away from the lifestyle sought by our founding fathers. New laws for new tech does not bother me, unless it conflicts with the constitution. (phone tapping) . . Long story short, I fear I won't be able to wipe my arse without a permit if law makers continue this path. [Edited by Don W]
This is a tough issue though. You mention Peyote early in a case in 90. In 1993 the religious freedom restoration act paved the way for religious use of peyote. So here we have a act supporting or claiming are rights.
posted by who knew
I don't agree that because our borders shifted and our population skyrocketed has any bearing on our freedoms. Yes times will change and new tech, ways of travel etc will arise. Laws must be enacted to support these subjects. However they should not contradict or infringe upon our freedoms.
As for the religious freedom act states that congress can not pass a law that will burden one's religious beliefs. It really doesn't need to go much further than that. [Edited by Don W]
Originally posted by donwhite
Well W/K, I don’t know about that. Sounds OK but it has a couple soft spots. “Burden” is a very elusive and vague word. It covers many circumstances. What one man might regard as a burden another man might see it as an opportunity. If a law is so vague that ordinary people cannot know what is allowed and what is not, it can be held unconstitutional for vagueness because it cannot be fairly enforced.
“Religious beliefs” is also ambiguous as is evidenced by the issuance of more than 11,000 IRS 501(c)(3) registrations for charitable (including religious) organizations. This designation is necessary so donors can claim a deduction for their gift on their tax returns. My point is that there are at least 11,000 different ways to view “religious belief” in America. That makes it too vague, too ambiguous to be enforced.
[edit on 6/3/2007 by donwhite]
Congress can overrule the Supreme Court although that is very rare.