Questions concerning "Intrastate" commerce vs. "Interstate" commerce

Questions concerning "Intrastate" commerce vs. "Interstate" commerce

Hi,

I have a question on the ongoing saga of states vs. the federal government on gun manufacturing. Where does it state in the Constitution that the Federal Government can and will regulate intrastate commerce? The court case of Wickard v. Fliburn shows the Federal Government taking a large step into the intrusion of States Rights under the 10th Amendment. A state has the inherent right to regulate its domestic commerce. If the domestic commerce was gun manufacturing and each state manufactured its own gun (ie. handguns were made from the ground up with the state itself refining minerals to make the complete gun), how could Congress regulate that as interstate commerce? How would it be a burden on interstate commerce according to the government?

Also, if a state were able to manufacture its own guns, how would this be a burden on gun manufactures like Colt, Smith & Wesson, etc.? Would the manufacturing and selling of "state" guns violate interstate commerce of gun manufactures like Colt? Or, would this allow competitiveness come back into capitalism?

edited:
I found this interesting: United States vs. Lopez 1995. I copied of the second to last paragraph:

Since 1937 and until United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court had consistently upheld, and greatly expanded, Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause. Before the New Deal, the Supreme Court interpreted the clause literally and narrowly, ruling in United States v. E. C. Knight (1895) and Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935), for example, that the Commerce Clause only permits federal regulation of the buying, selling, and transportation of goods between states, not over the manufacture of goods within states, even if that manufacture was closely related to interstate commerce. Yet in the late 1930s the Supreme Court greatly changed course, ruling that federal laws regulating the local production of goods "substantially affected" interstate commerce and was therefore constitutional. By the 1960s and 1970s, in fact, the Court ruled that laws banning segregation in roadside motels and restaurants and outlawing local practices of loan sharking "substantially affected" interstate commerce and were constitutional.
This information came from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_us.html

You would think that the U.S. Supreme Court would revisit Wickard v. Fliburn and overturn that ruling.

A few states have passed made in this state laws saying any firearm made there is not subject to federal law.

Montana is one it is still working its way through the courts at this time.

On the remote change that the Feinstein ban could pass, then the states could allow the manufacture for sale within the state because the Federal government will have stopped the interstate portion, and then there could be no interference with interstate commerce.

carolina guy said:

On the remote change that the Feinstein ban could pass, then the states could allow the manufacture for sale within the state because the Federal government will have stopped the interstate portion, and then there could be no interference with interstate commerce.

Click to expand...

Maybe maybe not the courts have been know to let the feds run wild with the commerce clause.

Anything sold between the States affects interstate commerce and anything that's not sold in the state affects interstate commerce because if it Were sold it would affect interstate commerce, so the fact that it wasn't sold affects sales interstate.
Simple when you think of it in the right frame of mind. :banghead:

Fallschirmjäger said:

Anything sold between the States affects interstate commerce and anything that's not sold in the state affects interstate commerce because if it Were sold it would affect interstate commerce, so the fact that it wasn't sold affects sales interstate.
Simple when you think of it in the right frame of mind. :banghead:

Click to expand...

Unless the Feds outlaw interstate commerce in an item...then intrastate commerce has no effect, by definition.

In-state sales of an item affect interstate Commerce
"... In Swift v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), the Court ruled that the clause covered meat packers; although their activity was geographically "local", they had an important effect on the "current of commerce", and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause..."


Not selling an item also affects Interstate, regulation via the Commerce Clause
"...Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

To summarize...
Sales between the states affect interstate commerce;
Sales in the state affect interstate commerce;
and the kicker, not selling in the state, not selling between the states, and not even selling at all, affects interstate commerce.

Therefore... all sales and all non-sales affect interstate commerce and are thereby subject to regulation via the Commerce Clause (if you read it in the right [all power to the government] frame of mind.)

Fallschirmjäger said:

In-state sales of an item affect interstate Commerce
"... In Swift v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905), the Court ruled that the clause covered meat packers; although their activity was geographically "local", they had an important effect on the "current of commerce", and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause..."


Not selling an item also affects Interstate, regulation via the Commerce Clause
"...Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity.
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

To summarize...
Sales between the states affect interstate commerce;
Sales in the state affect interstate commerce;
and the kicker, not selling in the state, not selling between the states, and not even selling at all, affects interstate commerce.

Therefore... all sales and all non-sales affect interstate commerce and are thereby subject to regulation via the Commerce Clause (if you read it in the right [all power to the government] frame of mind.)

Click to expand...

Of course anything that is Unconstitutional on its face makes perfect sense when you view it from the point of someone who doesn't care about what the Constitution says and means.

Questions concerning "Intrastate" commerce vs. "Interstate" commerce

Fallschirmjäger said:

...
"...Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), ...
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it...

Click to expand...

There would have been dead Feds if they had come to enforce that on me. Think again if you think we have given that kind of authority to our government. They certainly didn't get it from our grants under the constitution, and I don't recall seeing where my growing of a common food crop for my own consumption can be regulated for the purpose of driving up prices and protecting the market for the products of others. Subsistence living was the basic form of living in the US for most of its initial history.

Questions concerning "Intrastate" commerce vs. "Interstate" commerce

And on topic: STI is manufactured here. I'm good with that, but I better stock up before the crisis, because prices will go thru the roof. High demand and no competition, yet.

masterskop said:

You would think that the U.S. Supreme Court would revisit Wickard v. Fliburn and overturn that ruling.

Click to expand...

What, and give up all that power? Not likely.

The interstate commerce clause is one of the most twisted portions of the Constitution. What it means at its core, is this: only Congress may regulate interstate commerce; the states may not.

How's that working out? Well, many states ban interstate commerce in certain items, such as tobacco or fireworks or alcohol. Tennessee will seize your car through asset forfeiture if you're found in possession of more than one carton of out of state cigarettes (and they station unmarked cars at neighboring states' tobacco stores to radio ahead about "likely suspects").

This is a clear violation of the interstate commerce clause.

And, since Wickard v. Filburn, Congress has declared that all commerce, or even acts that are not commerce at all, "affects" interstate commerce, putting it within their purview. This is also a clear violation of the interstate commerce clause for those who can read plain English without passing it through the filter of stare decisis.

Probably only the Second Amendment has been more corrupted through judicial and legislative intentional ignorance of original intent.

Fallschirmjäger said:

"...Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), ...
A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it...

Click to expand...

nonameisgood said:

There would have been dead Feds if they had come to enforce that on me. Think again if you think we have given that kind of authority to our government. They certainly didn't get it from our grants under the constitution, and I don't recall seeing where my growing of a common food crop for my own consumption can be regulated for the purpose of driving up prices and protecting the market for the products of others. Subsistence living was the basic form of living in the US for most of its initial history.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt it for a moment.
A long time ago, Colonists could tar and feather the agents of the Crown who oppressed them and ride them out of town on rails. But as they say, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and the current government has learned not to allow its agents to lose, no matter what the price.
Overwhelming force is the watchword of the day, if an agent of the government feels there is opposition backup will be called, and called again until there is nothing but the force of government on the field.

Fallschirmjäger said:

I don't doubt it for a moment.
A long time ago, Colonists could tar and feather the agents of the Crown who oppressed them and ride them out of town on rails. But as they say, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" and the current government has learned not to allow its agents to lose, no matter what the price.
Overwhelming force is the watchword of the day, if an agent of the government feels there is opposition backup will be called, and called again until there is nothing but the force of government on the field.

Click to expand...

Maybe "We the People" will turn from being cows and sheep to "People" again. I think both political parties have a lot to learn from this. The U.S. Constitution was meant for and by the people. I think the "States" will be the first opposition. Once states start saying "No" to "big brother", we will see something new come along. The government does not have enough resources to stop each state at the same time. Sure, federal funding is a big carrot that each state goes for, but if the carrot were to be removed? A possible remote solution to get away from the "carrot" is for each state to go back to getting gold and silver coins...possibly buying up gold and silver from other countries and keep it in reserve. This in one way is to get states off of the ever weakening dollar. Once the federal reserve system collapses and it probably will due to too much money being printed, each state will have to come up with some monetary system. States need to look to each other to solve the solution of the currency issue. The Federal government is a waste of time now. States have been living off the governmental "teat" too long. Would regaining a gold and silver monetary standard help states regain control of the 10th amendment in some way? Remember, states cannot create its own currency, but states can create other states gold and silver coins as legal tender.

masterskop said:

Maybe "We the People" will turn from being cows and sheep to "People" again. I think both political parties have a lot to learn from this. The U.S. Constitution was meant for and by the people. I think the "States" will be the first opposition. Once states start saying "No" to "big brother", we will see something new come along. The government does not have enough resources to stop each state at the same time. Sure, federal funding is a big carrot that each state goes for, but if the carrot were to be removed? A possible remote solution to get away from the "carrot" is for each state to go back to getting gold and silver coins...possibly buying up gold and silver from other countries and keep it in reserve. This in one way is to get states off of the ever weakening dollar. Once the federal reserve system collapses and it probably will due to too much money being printed, each state will have to come up with some monetary system. States need to look to each other to solve the solution of the currency issue. The Federal government is a waste of time now. States have been living off the governmental "teat" too long. Would regaining a gold and silver monetary standard help states regain control of the 10th amendment in some way? Remember, states cannot create its own currency, but states can create other states gold and silver coins as legal tender.

Click to expand...

Nothing but fear stops each state from chartering its own banks and then "loaning" themselves "money" in the same manner that the FedGovCo does via the Federal Reserve. They can kick and scream, but if they do it loudly enough it exposes the entire fractional reserve system for the fraud it is...and the handlers for the Prez will never allow it.

carolina guy said:

Nothing but fear stops each state from chartering its own banks and then "loaning" themselves "money" in the same manner that the FedGovCo does via the Federal Reserve. They can kick and scream, but if they do it loudly enough it exposes the entire fractional reserve system for the fraud it is...and the handlers for the Prez will never allow it.

Click to expand...

I wonder if states, that are creating bills such as Freedom of Firearms Acts, are getting braver or is it just for "show"? I know that the Feds are not taking states to court that have laws on allowing people to use marijuana. So, do you think those states that have legislation to allow for gun manufacturing will not be taken to the U.S. Supreme court?

The problem I have with the whole discussion of "Interstate Commerce" Is the fact that the phrase "interstate commerce" is not found in the Constitution at all. If you look at the Constitution, the clause reads "To regulate commerce...among the states"

"Commerce among the states" is very different than "interstate commerce". Interstate commerce includes commerce between two companies in different states. Commerce among the states is just that. The intention was to be able to regulate the state's engagement in commerce, not private commerce.

boyscout399 said:

The problem I have with the whole discussion of "Interstate Commerce" Is the fact that the phrase "interstate commerce" is not found in the Constitution at all. If you look at the Constitution, the clause reads "To regulate commerce...among the states"

"Commerce among the states" is very different than "interstate commerce". Interstate commerce includes commerce between two companies in different states. Commerce among the states is just that. The intention was to be able to regulate the state's engagement in commerce, not private commerce.

Click to expand...

Got any citations?

i can't understand any of these frickin posts because no one can type a word correctly, or use punctuation....

boyscout399 said:

The problem I have with the whole discussion of "Interstate Commerce" Is the fact that the phrase "interstate commerce" is not found in the Constitution at all. If you look at the Constitution, the clause reads "To regulate commerce...among the states"

"Commerce among the states" is very different than "interstate commerce". Interstate commerce includes commerce between two companies in different states. Commerce among the states is just that. The intention was to be able to regulate the state's engagement in commerce, not private commerce.

Click to expand...

Here's something that I found concerning the phrase: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/interstate+commerce