• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
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_amendment#History_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.
 

david.ross

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,241
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 
Top