by Chief Judge Ben

I believe that my colleagues in the majority err in unnecessarily restricting the abilities of Congress. The National Firearm Control and Public Safety Act is not repugnant on its face: it does not violate rights guaranteed by The Constitution of the Republic of Krameria and is affirmatively within the powers granted to Congress.

Unlike the United States, the Constitution of Krameria does not guarantee the right to possess firearms, nor is it sufficiently analogous to currently accepted rights nor appear to be a natural right of the people.

Article 27(d) permits the legislature to regulate interstate commerce, and firearms are by their nature an interstate matter. No state would be able to adequately regulate firearms due to the ease of such crossing state borders. Two of my colleagues arguing against this interpretation such draw an arbitrary and vague distinction between guns and military weapons that is not based on the text. They take too narrow a view of interstate commerce.

Two of my colleagues misunderstand "lawful possession", as anything against statute is not lawful by definition, and effectively legislate from the bench that property rights wholly override congressional regulation of any property under Article 27(e). They fail to consider the wide reaching implications this would have when future litigants cite them, and legislate from the bench.

My colleagues hand wave away the importance of Article 27(i) allowing Congress to regulate the armed forces. This must give the federal government the ability to restrict the degree to which citizens may be armed, lest a rebellion be more armed than the federal military. Such is not possible if the states can effectively override such with their own legislation on firearms.

In striking down the National Firearm Control and Public Safety Act, the majority overextends the power of this court at the same time as they limit the power of the legislature. For this reason, I dissent.