"Cult Religion Ban"

[Andrew]

I have often heard the statement that "Nothing has killed more people in history than religion!" And in light of the history of "Cult Religions" such as Heavens Gate, The Order of the Solar Temple, The People's Temple, and Aum Shinrikyo.....
I am going to propose to my U.S. Rep that he introduce a Cult Religion Ban bill. The "CRB" would require that any religious philosophy, creed, or mystical belief system that wasn't extant in these United States prior to 1937 be regulated.
Members of said belief system would be required to register with the DHS, each adult member would be taxed $200.00 and their homes, places of worship, or other facilities would all be subject to surprise, warrantless searches as long as they are members of the regulated belief system "RBS".
All donations, gifts, or bequests to an "RBS" would be subject to a 50% tax and an "RBS" would be required to file quarterly reports with and deposit estimated donative deductions with the IRS.
If any members of the "RBS" commits a felony level crime, the "RBS" itself would be subject to dissolution and members who continue to practice the dissolved "RBS" would be subject to arrest and imprisonment.
Any belief systems imported after 1989 would be completely banned.
Any "charity" funds or support funds distributed overseas would be subject to limits of 10,000.00 usd per "RBS" annually and be subject to audit by the IRS.
If any members of the "Traditional Denominations" lay or clergy enter into or support changes in the "TD"s approved belief system, the "TD" risks, after review by DHS, becoming an "RBS". "TD"s can eliminate this risk by informing DHS of dissenting voices within its communion within 24 hours of such dissent. Dissenters will be interviewed by designated DHS agents for the purpose of determining the extent of their personal dissent and how prevalent such dissent is in their "TD". This information, after review by designated authority, could be used in an administrative hearing to reduce said "TD" to "RBS" status.

I have looked at potential "RBS" pictures in 1993 and again in 2012 and I can assure you that I may not be able to define what makes and "RBS" I'll know it when I see it.

[SQLGeek]

Nice Modest Proposal.

[JALLEN]

Would you recognize the First Amendment if you saw it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The courts would strike that down, even in the absurd likelihood it would pass and be signed into law, before the Clerk of the Court could say "please be seated and come to order!" Not a chance in the world though.

[Andrew]

Would you recognize the First Amendment if you saw it?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The courts would strike that down, even in the absurd likelihood it would pass and be signed into law, before the Clerk of the Court could say "please be seated and come to order!" Not a chance in the world though.

Yes, I am fully cognizant of the First Amendment. Would you recognize the infringements on the 2nd Amendment if you saw them?
All of the restrictions proposed for the "CRB" are in existance or have been proposed for the "AWB" legislation that has been floating around. If the First Amendment infringement protection is such a slam dunk, why isn't it the same for the 2nd?

[anygunanywhere]

Although I understand your frustration your suggestion is absurd. You do not want the government defining what religions are cults.

Anygunanywhere

[mamabearCali]

Of course it is absurd. I think that is the point. We would not dream of doing such a thing all religions are protected by the bill of rights, but modern rifles also protected by the bill of ribs are on the chopping block. I think it was a juxtaposition.

[Andrew]

The post and the proposal are meant to be Absurd. I no more want any government infringement/regulation of religion, than I do infringement/regulation of my right to keep and bear arms.
Yet when I couch the anti-gun crowds arguments in the frame work of another amendment in the Bill of Rights no one sees it?

[anygunanywhere]

The post and the proposal are meant to be Absurd. I no more want any government infringement/regulation of religion, than I do infringement/regulation of my right to keep and bear arms.
Yet when I couch the anti-gun crowds arguments in the frame work of another amendment in the Bill of Rights no one sees it?

Thank you for clarifying. It is often difficult to tell.

Your post actually is a way for those who do not understand the actual meaning of the second amendment to get a decent graqsp of what is obvious to us.

Anygunanywhere

[Andrew]

Of course it is absurd. I think that is the point. We would not dream of doing such a thing all religions are protected by the bill of rights, but modern rifles also protected by the bill of ribs are on the chopping block. I think it was a juxtaposition.

Thanx MamabearCali
Yes Anygunanywhere, that was the point. Take the guns off the table and attempt the dismantling of an Amendment no one really could imagine going away.

[mr surveyor]

and I don't want those same people in government defining what firearms I can own based on whether or not they were originally designed for military use or sporting use. that "rule" covers a whole lot more ground than we are currently considering.

[Andrew]

and I don't want those same people in government defining what firearms I can own based on whether or not they were originally designed for military use or sporting use. that "rule" covers a whole lot more ground than we are currently considering.

So we could add a "All "RBS"s must have been founded on a doctrine of non-violence and promote pacifism" in the "CRB" I'm good with that.

[JALLEN]

Yes, I am fully cognizant of the First Amendment. Would you recognize the infringements on the 2nd Amendment if you saw them?
All of the restrictions proposed for the "CRB" are in existance or have been proposed for the "AWB" legislation that has been floating around. If the First Amendment infringement protection is such a slam dunk, why isn't it the same for the 2nd?

Sorry, I thought you were being silly. or something, trying to be ironic, etc. maybe.

Constitutional law is a game that any number can play, kind of like baseball. There are millions of people who play the game, some at a higher level than others. There are countless more who sit in the stands and watch. Some lesser number of players are good enough, trained and agile enough, that they get paid to play the game. Of those who are "pros" some get to play in the Big Leagues while others play in various lesser, or minor leagues round the country. At the very top of the game, the only ones who really count, are 9 players who have risen to the very top of their profession, who are called upon to make the really big plays, the last word, the champions!

Everyone, of course, has an opinion, even with instant replay, or I should say, especially with instant replay. Every move of game of every season is endlessly analyzed, second guessed, re-interpreted, by the folks in the stands, by the gawkers on TV, by the players who look to the top players and see how they do things and try to imitate that. Only the opinions of the final 9 count for much.

Each amendment, each clause, in many cases, has its own body of law with its own precedence, prior decision where the Court has interpreted the same words before. Those are generally left alone, unless there is a really big good reason to change them. Each amendment is analyzed usually within its own structure for guidance on how it is to be applied. Sometimes, the same general principles aid interpretation.

Cases involving the Second Amendment are relatively few, but cases involving various clauses of the First are numerous. "Congress shall make no law...." but we find that over the couple hundred years of Constitutional government that Congress has made all sorts of laws interfering with the enumerated rights. Establishing religion, free exercise, all kinds of speech criticizing the government, political speech, acts as political speech, flag desecration, defamation, freedom of association, have all been subjects of Congressional lawmaking; some are struck down, some are not. You have to trace the line of cases on each issue to figure out what the limits are the court, as it is composed from time to time has been willing to tolerate. None are absolute, despite the rather seemingly unambiguous language, "Congress shall make no law.." In fact, Justice Douglas viewed the First Amendment literally, as did Justices Black and Frankfurter, but these were never majority rulings only dissents.

The most recent Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald, recognize the private right to "keep and bear" striking down what the court deems as complete bans on firearms possession and use, also recognizing reasonable restrictions without defining precisely what those might be. Some argue that even reasonable restrictions are an 'infringement" but I think we can be quite confident that however appealing it may seem from a logical and semantics standpoint, that will never be accepted by the court, or by the people. That is a political issue. Give us 65 or so Senators and a decent majority in the House, plus a President at least not rabidly opposed, and all those onerous restrictions can be repealed.

There is no argument, or combination of stances that will make the opposition suddenly say "OK, you're right. Forget it. Have whatever you want. " The best we can realistically hope for in the current political climate is no further restrictions, certainly not some California scheme enacted into law. As long as we hold the House majority, there is a chance for that.

[Andrew]

There is no argument, or combination of stances that will make the opposition suddenly say "OK, you're right. Forget it. Have whatever you want. " The best we can realistically hope for in the current political climate is no further restrictions, certainly not some California scheme enacted into law. As long as we hold the House majority, there is a chance for that.

Thank You for your thoughtful reply.
I thought that framing the current debate as I have would allow anti-gunners the opportunity to see the other side of the issue without the defense mechanisms we all harbor coming into play.
While I am not an attorney nor have I been trained in the law, I've made a project of studying 2nd Amendment jurisprudence since my arrival in Texas in 2002. It was rather forcefully brought to my attention I was no longer in Nevada when a Texas trooper stopped me to ask "Where y'all exactly goin' with them guns?" refering to the Marlin 336 and Remington 700 hanging in the gun rack in the cab of my truck. The huge difference in the law between Nevada in regards firearms and Texas truly surprised me.
It seems to me, could be wrong, that most gun control laws were/are enacted as a way to oppress a segment of the population. Until the 1970's, while framed as safety measures most, such as the 1967 Mulford Act in California, were designed to disarm Blacks and Latinos. With that type of history why do the majority of the minority population support gun control legislation?

Again thanx for your reply I get tired of the demagoguery, vitriol, and hyperbole from both sides of the issue.

[Wes]

While it might have been started in somewhat of a misdirected fashion, I actually think this is a great way to frame the topic for those that may call for the limitations but not understand what they are asking for. I mean, it seems very obvious that we would not want the government to start determining what religions are legitimate or not, so why is it not so obvious that they should not be defining what guns are legitimate guns for our use. It does not say the establishment of the 'christian' religion, just as it does not say the right to keep and bare 'six shooters'. It also does not say the freedom of the 'printed' press as it rightfully shouldnt, so don't try to add 'within reason' after shall not be infringed.

[tommyg]

Most of our religions started out as cults