The Commerce Clause versus the Ninth Amendment....

Congress has used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to justify numerous restrictions of the inalienable rights associated with firearms ownership protected by the Second Amendment. And yet, the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This is clearly what has taken place. The enumeration to congress of the right to regulate commerce, which historically meant that congress was responsible to REGULARIZE (encourage the free-flow of) commerce, not restrict it, has been used to disparage and deny the inalienable rights associated with firearms ownership retained by the people under the Second Amendment.

With that in mind, it it time for all of us to bring pressure on our representatives to repeal such laws. The Gun Free School Zone Act is one such example; there are many others ("assault" weapons, hi cap mags, etc.). Congress, under Bush (who signed the original GFSZA in 1990), argued that, since the commerce clause gives it the right to regulate interstate commerce, and since nearly all firearms (or their individual components) must be obtained via interstate commerce, congress has the right to restrict the use of firearms. The Second Amendment, on the other hand, explicitly reserves the right of firearms ownership, use, and carry to the people. So my question is this: since such legislation is clearly a violation of the Ninth Amendment (making the legislation illegal and, therefore, unenforceable), why was it allowed to proceed in the first place, and why has it been allowed to remain and be enforced? The followup question is, since it has been allowed to remain, why is legislation and legal action to repeal such laws on the basis of the Ninth Amendment not being actively pursued?

Our legislators won't do it if we don't make it a priority. We are coming into an election year. There needs to be a groundswell of communication from the firearms owner community to those currently in office demanding the repeal of all firearms-restrictive legislation based on the commerce clause. This must be one of the litmus tests that determines whether a candidate is worthy of our consideration. Simply stating that firearms ownership is a "political right" as Gingrich recently did is not enough; we need to see a solid commitment to the principle that firearms ownership is an inalienable right protected by both the Second and Ninth Amendments of the Constitution.