View Poll Results: Will this strategy work to legally avoid federal firearms laws?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2 14.29%
  • Maybe

    4 28.57%
  • No

    8 57.14%
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: A potent business strategy to defeat all Federal firearms laws?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    I just want to get this off my chest, so if there is any value in this whatsoever, someone or some organization will be able to use the info and use it to their advantage. I don't know if these ideas have already been considered by existing American gun manufacturers (Ruger, I'm talking to you), or budding entrepreneurs. I'd predict that sales would be through the roof for such a company, however, if people had more access to firearms sales under an Obama administration coupled with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate.

    An Idea for Consideration

    To the best of my knowledge, the Federal government onlyhas jurisdiction over interstate commerce between states, due to the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. I believe as many do, that this authority is being abused on a massive scale, in order to control what goes on inside states, and to control individuals. I think most, if not all, Federal firearms laws get their authority from this clause of the U.S. Constitution. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know the extent to which this strategy could be effective. I'd like to see some comments from lawyers that participate in these forums.

    Since firearms dealers obtain products across state lines, and those products themselves are sold across state lines, we've voluntarily entanged ourselves in federal anti-gun and gun control legislation. I believe this must be realized before we can start fixing the problem.

    With the Interstate Commerce clause being the first roadblock, the second roadblock is the control of states through Federal dollars, dispensed back to the state from sources such as federal income and various other taxes. States have made themselves dependent on Federal dollars, as if their very existence depends on it.

    So, my proposal, however bad it may be, is as follows.

    1) It appears individual states still have the ability to "avoid" Federal firearms laws, if a firearms manufacturer only engages in "commerce" within their own state. The business model behind this may not be workable, since it severely limits the customer base. The legal profession would need to be consulted when starting this new business, in order to prevent getting caught up in the web of interstate commerce regulations from the beginning.

    2) When the U.S. Congressional pro gun-control legislators realize what's going on, they will attempt to rewrite laws to prevent states from receiving unrelated federal dollars if they do not comply with some "demand" of theirs to restrict firearms usage, or sale. I have no unique solution for this, as addiction to federal money is rampant in nearly all states. All I can suggest here is local activism to reject the federal dollars, and live with it.

    A message for the anti-gunners reading this.

    For the anti-gunners reading this, don't get your panties in a wad. Under such a strategy to retain local regulatory control, according to the U.S. Constitution, states would still have the ability to regulate all firearms usage, commerce and manufacturing. It's just going to be much harder for you to implement a national agenda that affects all states, as it should be.

    If any of this is useful, please pass it along to those it may concern.

    - Statesman


  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713

    Post imported post

    As unconstitutional extensions of the interstate commerce clause, federal law already should have no impact on sales within stateswhether or not they trade with other states. I.E., you should be able to build yourself a machinegun if your state laws allowwithout registering it. Obviously this is still not the case. The congress will still regulate within individual states and somehow justify it with the interstatecommerce clause. Prohibiting sales between states will not remove the feds false authority to regulate practically anything they choose.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Felid`Maximus wrote:
    Prohibiting sales between states will not remove the feds false authority to regulate practically anything they choose.
    I wasn't suggesting prohibiting sales between states. I was suggesting that firearms commerce could be kept within the state, voluntarily, in order to avoid "interstate commerce". I also mentioned that it would be important to consult the legal profession, to research existing case law, in order to avoid getting entangled in the interstate commerce mess.

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Alabama, USA
    Posts
    935

    Post imported post

    While I agree with your thoughts, it would be near impossible to implement....

    The ICC would apply to ALL materials required to manufacture firearms....i.e., ALL metal orr would have to be processed into steel, aluminum etc. in state...as would ALL composites.
    They would not only have to be processed in state, their "virgin" materials would also have to originate in state....most states simply don't have the needed raw materials "in house".

  5. #5
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    I had thought of that, but wasn't sure if it would apply to raw materials. This is a tyrannical interpretation of the ICC, IMHO. But it may be what we are left with after the Democrats are finished with their anti-gun legislation, I fear.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    This is a tyrannical interpretation of the ICC, IMHO. But it may be what we are left with after the Democrats are finished with their anti-gun legislation, I fear.
    You're joking, right? It's what we already have.



    http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3295

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    There are tons of Federal laws on the books with absolutely NO constitutional authority behind them.

    The way to fight gun control is to continue to stand up for our rights, and not budge, even an inch, on any gun control issue. Every law the Federal government makes that restricts in any way the ownership or possession of ANY firearm by ANY citizen is unconstitutional according to the 2nd amendment. It's there in plain black and white letters: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There's nothing to "interpret", and there are no riders or caveats listed. It is what it is, and we have to keep pushing and fighting on those grounds.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    Due to the large investment in machining tools required to manufacture firearms, it is doubtful that any manufacturer would consider setting up shop to supply firearms to a limited market.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    I just heard on Glenn Beck's show on Fox Saturday that Texas is considering a law that says any gun manufactured and sold within the state of Texas, is not subject to federal firearms laws.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    The trouble with this plan is that the government doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution. Even SCOTUS has tossed it aside.

    When they ruled that Roscoe Filburn growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was interstate commerce, the game was over. They then solidified it by ruling that Angel Raich was engaged in "interstate commerce" by growing medical marijuana at home.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    But the SCOTUS reasoning that let then tramp all over the constitution
    could be used against them as well.

    The reasoning was "you could" sell over state lines, and since you chose not to
    you effected interstate commerce.
    Useing the precidence, you argue that you are prohibited by federal law
    from selling over a state line, as the gun you manufacture is banned by the FEDS.
    So you can't engage in interstate commerce till the federal gun laws are changed.
    And therfore there is no interstate commerce to effect.:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

    Course you might get lucky and not get visits by Barny Frank in the next cell.
    Myself I think the lawyers are in on it, and will never really challenge
    the law, as they would be out a job if the government would have to leave
    the subjects alone.


  12. #12
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    The trouble with this plan is that the government doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution. Even SCOTUS has tossed it aside.

    When they ruled that Roscoe Filburn growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was interstate commerce, the game was over. They then solidified it by ruling that Angel Raich was engaged in "interstate commerce" by growing medical marijuana at home.
    Wasn't it on the basis that the seeds for the wheat was transported across state lines at some point in history? The same goes for marijuana.

    This won't be the case for metals mined out of the ground, unless they come out with some whacked out theory of lava flow when the Earth was forming. Rocks in the ground do not have the tendency to cross state borders to "affect interstate commerce".

    I'm telling you, states need to run with this. I'll look for the alleged bill in Texas tonight. Let the feds take it to the courts, and we'll see what happens.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Found it. This seems to be much broader than I had envisioned. I think this should be reworded to cover raw material procurement, or the courts may not rule in the state's favor.

    It sounds like the intent is for any firearm "manufactured" in the state. The state AG will also defend any Texas citizen against any federal attempts to prosecute.

    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Searc...ighlightType=1

    LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD Austin, Texas FISCAL NOTE, 81ST LEGISLATIVE REGULAR SESSION
    April 25, 2009
    TO: Honorable Tommy Merritt, Chair, House Committee on Public Safety
    FROM: John S. O'Brien, Director, Legislative Budget Board IN RE:HB1863 by Berman (Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.), As Introduced
    No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
    The bill would amend statute and exempt the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation. In particular, a firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition manufactured in Texas that remains within the borders of Texas and has not traveled in interstate commerce would not be subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration. The bill also provides that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) shall defend a Texas citizen whom the federal government attempts to prosecute for violation of federal law. The OAG anticipates any legal work resulting from the passage of this bill could be reasonably absorbed with current resources.
    Local Government Impact
    No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.

    Source Agencies:302 Office of the Attorney General LBB Staff: JOB, ESi, JM




  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    The trouble with this plan is that the government doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution. Even SCOTUS has tossed it aside.

    When they ruled that Roscoe Filburn growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was interstate commerce, the game was over. They then solidified it by ruling that Angel Raich was engaged in "interstate commerce" by growing medical marijuana at home.
    Wasn't it on the basis that the seeds for the wheat was transported across state lines at some point in history? The same goes for marijuana.

    No, that wasn't an issue in either case. In both Filburn and Raich (which relied on Filburn), the government's argument, which SCOTUS upheld, was that growing your own could possibly affect interstate commerce in some unknown way, because if you didn't have to buy it, some grower or dealer in another state might produce less.

    It's the thinnest thread ever seen in a national ruling, and is laughable on its face. Unfortunately, it gives the federal government free rein to declare any activity to be under their purview via the interstate commerce clause.

    You may have seen the recent attack on the gun industry in the guise of ITAR. Every maker of guns or gun parts is being required to certify that they are not exporting "military technology". This is expensive and burdensome, and will shutter many small businesses.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Statesman wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    The trouble with this plan is that the government doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution. Even SCOTUS has tossed it aside.

    When they ruled that Roscoe Filburn growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was interstate commerce, the game was over. They then solidified it by ruling that Angel Raich was engaged in "interstate commerce" by growing medical marijuana at home.
    Wasn't it on the basis that the seeds for the wheat was transported across state lines at some point in history? The same goes for marijuana.

    No, that wasn't an issue in either case. In both Filburn and Raich (which relied on Filburn), the government's argument, which SCOTUS upheld, was that growing your own could possibly affect interstate commerce in some unknown way, because if you didn't have to buy it, some grower or dealer in another state might produce less.

    It's the thinnest thread ever seen in a national ruling, and is laughable on its face. Unfortunately, it gives the federal government free rein to declare any activity to be under their purview via the interstate commerce clause.

    You may have seen the recent attack on the gun industry in the guise of ITAR. Every maker of guns or gun parts is being required to certify that they are not exporting "military technology". This is expensive and burdensome, and will shutter many small businesses.
    That's just fine then. Let Texas do the procurement and production since no business is likely going to take the chance.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    Only the serial numbered "reciever" IS the firearm, that is well documented, which is why other parts are legally sold without FFL interaction. The raw material issue may affect some states and not others, I would like to see this approach attempted.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    In both Filburn and Raich (which relied on Filburn), the government's argument, which SCOTUS upheld, was that growing your own could possibly affect interstate commerce in some unknown way, because if you didn't have to buy it, some grower or dealer in another state might produce less.
    By this, it seems that anyone that grows a vegetable garden for their own use or sell locally only, could find themselves in a bind with the Feds.

    They better stay the hell out of our garden, we post armed guards.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Task Force 16 wrote:
    In both Filburn and Raich (which relied on Filburn), the government's argument, which SCOTUS upheld, was that growing your own could possibly affect interstate commerce in some unknown way, because if you didn't have to buy it, some grower or dealer in another state might produce less.
    By this, it seems that anyone that grows a vegetable garden for their own use or sell locally only, could find themselves in a bind with the Feds.

    They better stay the hell out of our garden, we post armed guards.
    Yes, that one is in the works. Government can't have you risk growing your own food. You might sicken yourself. Therefore, you must eat genetically modified foods by mandate. If you die from starvation during a national food shortage caused by politician meddling in the industry, oh well. We won't be able to sue government, because they won't allow simple peasant workers to harm their cartel, errr, I mean food racket with Monsanato.

    Grow your own food, go to prison, you food criminal! DHS has been notified of your armed guards, you terrorist!

    Maybe your GMO tomatoes will have eyes by that time?

    http://www.naturalnews.com/026114.html

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    The state of Montana, thanks to Representative JoelBoniek, is way ahead already:

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...o-federal.html

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    So, my proposal, however bad it may be, is as follows.

    1) It appears individual states still have the ability to "avoid" Federal firearms laws, if a firearms manufacturer only engages in "commerce" within their own state. The business model behind this may not be workable, since it severely limits the customer base. The legal profession would need to be consulted when starting this new business, in order to prevent getting caught up in the web of interstate commerce regulations from the beginning.

    2) When the U.S. Congressional pro gun-control legislators realize what's going on, they will attempt to rewrite laws to prevent states from receiving unrelated federal dollars if they do not comply with some "demand" of theirs to restrict firearms usage, or sale. I have no unique solution for this, as addiction to federal money is rampant in nearly all states. All I can suggest here is local activism to reject the federal dollars, and live with it.
    I just want to point out that you didn't actually make a proposal, you just made a bunch of semi-related statements. Fortunately we all understood what you intended, but only because anyone who has been interested in firearms for any length of time is aware of this concept already. In the future if you are making a proposal you might want to consider re-reading the post and making sure you actually made a proposal before posting.

    Also the second part of your "Proposal" should have just been part of the general discussion you were making aside from the proposal since it doesn't even come CLOSE to proposing anything.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    The trouble with this plan is that the government doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution. Even SCOTUS has tossed it aside.

    When they ruled that Roscoe Filburn growing wheat on his own farm for his own use was interstate commerce, the game was over. They then solidified it by ruling that Angel Raich was engaged in "interstate commerce" by growing medical marijuana at home.
    Wasn't it on the basis that the seeds for the wheat was transported across state lines at some point in history? The same goes for marijuana.

    This won't be the case for metals mined out of the ground, unless they come out with some whacked out theory of lava flow when the Earth was forming. Rocks in the ground do not have the tendency to cross state borders to "affect interstate commerce".

    I'm telling you, states need to run with this. I'll look for the alleged bill in Texas tonight. Let the feds take it to the courts, and we'll see what happens.
    The basis for the Filburn ruling was even more outlandish than that! The reasoning was that by baking his own bread with flour grown on his own land and milled by his own hand, he therefore would not buy bread shipped in interstate commerce and thus his growing of wheat over his quota "affected Interstate Commerce" and thus the law against it was, according to SCOTUS, constitutional.

    How ANYBODY charged with "interpreting" the plain English of the Constitution could possibly conclude that the Founders actually intended to provide a loophole that Kirk could warp-drive the Enterprise through is beyond me, but that is what has happened.


  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Comp-tech wrote:
    While I agree with your thoughts, it would be near impossible to implement....

    The ICC would apply to ALL materials required to manufacture firearms....i.e., ALL metal orr would have to be processed into steel, aluminum etc. in state...as would ALL composites.
    They would not only have to be processed in state, their "virgin" materials would also have to originate in state....most states simply don't have the needed raw materials "in house".
    Since the raw materials do not become firearms until they are machined beyond 80% completion, the Interstate Commcerce Clause could (arguably) only apply after that point. Thus, materials could flow freely across state lines, and would only be subject federal regulation AFTER they have become receivers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •