• 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.

Fed judge dismisses states' gun suit, By MATT GOURAS (AP) – 13 hours ago

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...WMzVFAvXNcdOwK8EXubgD9IIFV3O0?docId=D9IIFV3O0
GOURAS said:
The decision Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy was expected since his magistrate a month ago recommended tossing out the lawsuit because Congress has the authority to regulate firearms with its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Molloy sided with the U.S. Department of Justice, which argued Congress' ability to regulate guns and other items through the "commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution had long ago been decided in courts.

The lawsuit involving Montana, Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia argued that states should decide which rules, if any, would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made inside their borders.
http://news.google.com/news/more?q=Wednesday+from+U.S.+District+Judge+Donald+Molloy
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.

Don't suprise me at all. I don't expect any court to stifle the commerce clause. It has been the basis of most of the most horrible legislation, and the foundation of the worst encroachment of federal power. We'll have to wait until 4 lunatics on the SCOTUS and 1 "moderate" are replaced by raging libertarians. Won't happen in my lifetime.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
The courts have thus far not used (and probably will not use) the meaning of the word "regulate" as it was commonly used at the time of the framing. From a dictionary published in 1790: Regulate was used in the context to make things regular or even, not to control. It's a shame.

We can have some hope if this reaches SCOTUS, because in Heller they did refer to the meanings of words at the time of the framing. If they do it again, they could correct years (decades) of misinterpretation of the commerce clause, which they do not have the power to do anyway.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Some might think that the "Commerce clause", (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), would be modified by later amendments as modifying previous clauses is one of the things amendments do.

If anything the Commerce clause should be rendered null and void as regards to arms by the language of the Second Amendment.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
The courts have thus far not used (and probably will not use) the meaning of the word "regulate" as it was commonly used at the time of the framing. From a dictionary published in 1790: Regulate was used in the context to make things regular or even, not to control. It's a shame.

We can have some hope if this reaches SCOTUS, because in Heller they did refer to the meanings of words at the time of the framing. If they do it again, they could correct years (decades) of misinterpretation of the commerce clause, which they do not have the power to do anyway.

I'm not as optimistic. When the eminent domain case was decided in 2005, we got the shaft. Now that O'Connor has been replaced with someone a bit more lucid, there could be hope, but I'm not sure the SCOTUS can be relied upon to severly curtail the power of government enough to strike down this ruling.
 

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
It sounds like these States need to "nullify" the Federal laws then. If you can't get any branch of the Federal Government to restrain themselves and their power it is important for the States to take their own action regardless of Federal mandate's.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
It sounds like these States need to "nullify" the Federal laws then. If you can't get any branch of the Federal Government to restrain themselves and their power it is important for the States to take their own action regardless of Federal mandate's.

That is what they are attempting to do.
 

ufcfanvt

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
431
Location
NoVA, Virginia, USA
The courts have thus far not used (and probably will not use) the meaning of the word "regulate" as it was commonly used at the time of the framing. From a dictionary published in 1790: Regulate was used in the context to make things regular or even, not to control. It's a shame.

We can have some hope if this reaches SCOTUS, because in Heller they did refer to the meanings of words at the time of the framing. If they do it again, they could correct years (decades) of misinterpretation of the commerce clause, which they do not have the power to do anyway.

You might want to be slightly MORE optimistic. Scalia actually cited the appropriate (for the time) meaning of the word in his opinion on Heller:
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

I'm not his biggest fan (esp after his duplicitous attack on the Privileges or Immunities Clause in McDonald) but he can be useful, not to mention influential.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
You might want to be slightly MORE optimistic. Scalia actually cited the appropriate (for the time) meaning of the word in his opinion on Heller:
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

I'm not his biggest fan (esp after his duplicitous attack on the Privileges or Immunities Clause in McDonald) but he can be useful, not to mention influential.

That's a good point, but the court has been notably hesitant to overturn precident has it not? I can't see them overturning precident in THIS particular case because it would emasculate the fed so much. I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just much more pessimistic.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma

The "commerce" clause has been misinterpreted by the courts for years.

The key words being "among the several states" which would be commonly be understood as between the several states at the time of its' inception. That is definitely not within the individual states. Ergo, anything that does not cross a state line is outside the purview of congress to regulate. It seems that many judges do not actually speak and understand the English language
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
That's a good point, but the court has been notably hesitant to overturn precident has it not? I can't see them overturning precident in THIS particular case because it would emasculate the fed so much. I'm not really disagreeing with you, I'm just much more pessimistic.

I, too, am very pessimistic. You are correct that they don't like to overturn precedent. The McDonald decision shows this. Four of the "justices" used the "due process" clause and Thomas used the "previledges and immunities" which was the correct one to use (if the 14th actually was suppose to incorporate). The rest were reluctant to use P&I because it would have destroyed the Slaughterhouse ruling.

I wonder if they would overturn precedent if the feds were to imprison all muslim Americans? Of course they would, because almost the whole of America wouldn't stand for it, and they know it. Incorrect incorporation of the 2nd would not cause a such an outroar, and they knew that, too.
 

vmaxanarchist

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
121
Location
naperville, il, ,
Don't suprise me at all. I don't expect any court to stifle the commerce clause. It has been the basis of most of the most horrible legislation, and the foundation of the worst encroachment of federal power. We'll have to wait until 4 lunatics on the SCOTUS and 1 "moderate" are replaced by raging libertarians. Won't happen in my lifetime.

Does that count include Scalia? He has ruled that the Federal goverment has the power to regulate backyard gardening as Interstate commerce.
 

sultan62

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
1,311
Location
Clayton, NC
Does that count include Scalia? He has ruled that the Federal goverment has the power to regulate backyard gardening as Interstate commerce.

Gotta love that interstate commerce clause, especially when it's on goods neither bought nor sold, not traveling across state lines.

I wish I could redefine words/laws/etc. at will to mean what I wanted.
 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
The "commerce" clause has been misinterpreted by the courts for years.

The key words being "among the several states" which would be commonly be understood as between the several states at the time of its' inception. That is definitely not within the individual states. Ergo, anything that does not cross a state line is outside the purview of congress to regulate. It seems that many judges do not actually speak and understand the English language

That, and it doesn't speak to commerce between CITIZENS of different states, just commerce between the STATES. This type of commerce is thought, today, to include any commerce that travels over State line. I propose it was meant to cover things that STATES do; charge interstate excise taxes, recognize marriage and other STATE permits (driver's license e.g.), excise taxes, port taxes and the like, IMO. But, alas, see Wickard v. Filburn. Are you serious?!!

Carry on.
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Does that count include Scalia? He has ruled that the Federal goverment has the power to regulate backyard gardening as Interstate commerce.

Hell, that goes back to the 30s. I forget the name of the case, but some guy was growing wheat for his own consumption and SCOTUS said if he were not consuming his own product that he would possibly be buying it from an interstate source. Sounds like backyard gardens can be controlled by congress. It's been getting worse ever since.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
That, and it doesn't speak to commerce between CITIZENS of different states, just commerce between the STATES. This type of commerce is thought, today, to include any commerce that travels over State line. I propose it was meant to cover things that STATES do; charge interstate excise taxes, recognize marriage and other STATE permits (driver's license e.g.), excise taxes, port taxes and the like, IMO. But, alas, see Wickard v. Filburn. Are you serious?!!

Carry on.

That's the case I was referring to in my earlier post. Another thing is the most common use of the word "regulate" in the late 18th century was to make regular or to make even, not control.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Does that count include Scalia? He has ruled that the Federal goverment has the power to regulate backyard gardening as Interstate commerce.

I've never heard that, do you have a source? If it's true then my oppinion of Scalia is certainly diminished. He hasn't been all that great, but a ruling like that would bring him down to Souter lunacy.
 

vmaxanarchist

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
121
Location
naperville, il, ,
I've never heard that, do you have a source? If it's true then my oppinion of Scalia is certainly diminished. He hasn't been all that great, but a ruling like that would bring him down to Souter lunacy.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
In Scalia's seperate opinon he joined with the liberal wing plus Kennedy. Only Oconner, Thomas, and Rehnquist where on the side of Federalisim. Read Thomas's seperate dissent. It is really scathing of the Majority when he gets to speculating on how their opinon allows the Federal goverment to regulate anything in the name of Interstate Commerce.

After reading that I knew Montana would loose in court when they first supposed this kind of law.
The only thing a state can do is decide to overturn their own gun control laws and not cooperate with the Feds, but they have no say in the Feds enforceing Federal law.

Even if some guy in Montana made a gun in his basement machine shop with local steel. SCOTUS would rule that him making that gun affected Interstate Commerce. Because he might have otherwise bought a gun made in another state if he had not made it. That's what they said about backyard gardening.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
Even if some guy in Montana made a gun in his basement machine shop with local steel. SCOTUS would rule that him making that gun affected Interstate Commerce. Because he might have otherwise bought a gun made in another state if he had not made it. That's what they said about backyard gardening.

It has become past time to remove a lot of the federal judges from the bench on the grounds of incompetence. I have never seen such a bunch of stupidity anywhere else other than the criminals of our society. They deserve each other.
 
Top