Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Montana challenges the Commerce Clause re: intrastate-only firearms

  1. #1
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543

    Montana challenges the Commerce Clause re: intrastate-only firearms

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-feds-on-guns/

    Montana (and 6 other states) are challenging the ability of the federal government to regulate firearms manufacture and sale when those firearms do not cross state lines.

    The action is currently at the Ninth Circuit, which will almost certainly rule in favor of the feds, and then it's on to the SCOTUS, where the entire basis for the use of the Commerce Clause to expand the feds' power may come into question.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    From what I understand of the U.S. Constitution, interstate commerce is the ONLY Constitutionally-based inroad the feds have with respect regulating firearms AT ALL. Even then, much of their regulation has infringed on the right to keep and bear arms, and has thus violated the 2nd Amendment.

    I think the foundations of these eight states are sound, and hope the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals has done their Constitutional+Amendments homework, particularly the part about "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    There are ZERO powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution giving it any authority whatsoever to regulate firearms manufacture or sales within a state. I think the case was never more clearly stated than by James Madison, who endorsed the 10th Amendment, even though he believed it was unnecessary as the Constitution already contained verbiage along the same lines:

    I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it. (The Founders Constitution)
    Good luck you, Mr. Marbut, Montana, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming!
    Last edited by since9; 06-24-2011 at 02:48 PM. Reason: spelling
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    I Agree with The Articles' Assumption that The 9th District will Uphold The Commerce Clause, to Preclude The 10th Amendment of The United States Constitution on This Matter.

    However..., will The Supreme Court of The United States do so as well?

    For Our Sake..., We better Hope not!
    Last edited by aadvark; 06-16-2011 at 11:28 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    I Agree with The Articles' Assumption that The 9th District will Uphold The Commerce Clause, to Preclude The 10th Amendment of The United States Constitution on This Matter.

    However..., will The Supreme Court of The United States do so as well?

    For Our Sake..., We better Hope not!
    For our sake? Do you mean for the sake of the entire "experiment" of our governmental system?

    If the SCOTUS were to uphold the current federal interpretation of the commerce clause then there would be nothing that the feds couldn't regulate. And that my friends would mean their gloves would come off and the tyranny would redouble....probably with very VERY serious kickback from those they attempt to tyranize.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  5. #5
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    I fully expect the SCOTUS to come up with some mamby-pamby ruling like McDonald where they will not allow the Feds to regulate intrastate commerce but make some exception (for the children) on firearms.

    Remember the DC & Chicago lawsuits were won 5-4 with Kennedy being the swing vote and he isn't the most "constitutional-supportive" of the justices.

    I have lost all faith in our Federal government to adhere to the Constitution. The coming collapse won't be pretty.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "For the children" is not one of the platitudes I have heard from SCOTUS. That one is usually used by politicians.

    BTW, McDonald does not contain a lot of exceptions, it left SCOTUS open, as rulings often (and should) do, to make detailed rulings on detailed issues as they come up, rather than try to anticipate them.

    In plain English, McDonald says that we have the individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms, yet there are circumstances where reasonable laws may be made regarding carry that won't restrict the Right itself. What are those laws? They can't all be anticipated or listed, but will be considered on a case-by-case basis. A few examples were provided, such as bars on carry for the insane and felons.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    I fully expect SCOTUS to rule 8-1 (Thomas dissenting) that federal firearms regulations are constitutionally sound under the necessary and proper clause because of the inherent public danger allotted to unregulated firearms and such regulations having a narrow government/public purpose.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by 45acpForMe View Post
    I have lost all faith in our Federal government to adhere to the Constitution.
    I haven't lost all faith. Just much of it. Neither Congress nor SCOTUS have a decent track record when it comes to adhering to the Constitution, much less "supporting and defending [it] against all enemies foreign and domestic." In face, I dare say some of the worst enemies of our Constitution are currently serving various terms from two years to life.

    They're not in prison, though. They're in office.

    The coming collapse won't be pretty.
    I will not call for an overthrow of our government.
    Last edited by since9; 06-24-2011 at 07:42 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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