Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Why firearm freedom acts/laws passed by states are most likely to fail in SCOTUS

  1. #1
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    Holding: "Production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act were constitutionally applied to agricultural production that was consumed purely intrastate, because its effect upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Southern District of Ohio reversed."

    The BAFTE regulates firearms on the federal level. The powers given to the BATFE by Congress reach intrastate, so firearms made in a state won't matter according to Wickard v. Filburn.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_am...y_and_case_law

    An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:
    "The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers....."
    There was one case which went to SCOTUS in which the opinion was altered to specify how Congress could not regulate, in United States v. Lopez.

    The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so.

    He concludes:
    "To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."

    Enlighten me if I've missed any cases which overturn or give a different opinion in regards to how SCOTUS may view the Firearms Freedom Acts which are law in some states.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    I-ANAL and a coward. On what pretext might SCOTUS exert jurisdiction in re Firearms Freedoms Acts and/or grant Certiorari?

  3. #3
    Regular Member david.ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    There's always the possibility SCOTUS will state a new opinion.

    Theres the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, both which are binding to forcing people to pay taxes on the firearms or become an FFL.

    I'm doubtful a case would go in the favor of second amendment rights without amending the constitution or having a constitutional convention.
    Gays are prominent members of firearm rights, we do more via the courts, don't like it? Leave.
    Religious bigots against same sex marriage are not different than white supremacists.
    I expel anti-gay people off my teams. Tolerance is key to team cohesion and team building.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    I understand what logic you are trying to use Insane Kangaroo, but I am not so sure it applies here, at least to the 1968 Gun Control Act.

    You are arguing that congress has the power to regulate intrastate commerce. I disagree with that at every level, but lets assume that you are correct. Congress has passed no law regulating intrastate commerce in firearms.

    The 1968 Gun Control Actis very specific in its definition of interstate commerce in section 921. There does not appear to be any authority granted to regulate intrastate commerce.

    While intrastate commerce may effect interstate commerce there is no authority that I can find in the 1968 GCA to actually regulate intrastate commerce.

    Judges are sticklers for details and the details of the 1968 GCA are very different from Wickard.

    I believe that there would have to be very radical changes to the 1968 GCA in order to allow the regulation of intrastate commerce.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

Posting Permissions

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