Montana challenges the Commerce Clause re: intrastate-only firearms

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/15/states-challenge-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.

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)

Click to expand...

Good luck you, Mr. Marbut, Montana, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wyoming!

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!

aadvark said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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.

"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.

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.

45acpForMe said:

I have lost all faith in our Federal government to adhere to the Constitution.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I will not call for an overthrow of our government.