States' Gun Rights: The Next Constitutional Battlefield

Gun regulation supporters say the Montana law is unconstitutional, citing long-standing court decisions going back to the Depression era based on the application of the so-called commerce clause regulating interstate commerce, the Wickard v. Filburn case, according to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The courts have ruled that even if a farmer grows his wheat locally, sells it locally and someone buys it locally, the entire transaction process is still governed by interstate commerce because of the concept that his actions affect the entire marketplace - including, most importantly, the ability of a farmer in a neighboring state to sell his wheat across state lines.
source

Found this article and decided to post it. It outlines the arguments against Montana's new law. Personally, i think it's one of the pieces of legislation to ever be passed. It simultaneously reaffirms both the Second and Tenth Amendments, both of which are in dire need of support. Others disagree. This is most likely going to be a long, long battle, as the opinions of those on both sides are rather fervent. Guess we'll just wait and see.


TA

I do not understand how it is interstate commerce if it doe not cross state lines.

That is a huge leap in logic

reply to post by xxpigxx


That is reaching a bit. I guess they're desperate for any sort of way to rationalize opposing this. Logical gymnastics at its finest.


TA

I support any law that supports our Constitution.
And any organization that cites Columbine as a reference is retarded.

The entire interstate commerce clause is an abomination of the Constitution all by itself.

This was intentionally put in to enable the Fed to stick their noses into State's business.

And if that SOB appoints another liberal-assed Legislator on the bench of the Supreme Court, then there is no telling how this will go down.

You can bet your sweet bippy that they will pull out every possible weapon to make this a Constitutional crisis.

Now.

What are the State's recourse if a crooked, left-leaning, pansy Supreme Court decides in favor of the gun control activists?

Maybe they should get our guns . . .

reply to post by dooper




Did you just call the duly elected President of the United States of America a son of a bitch? I'll grant you, I NEVER liked Bush, and I personally think that history will find him to be one of our worst Presidents, but at NO point did I feel the need for this form of personal attack.
Realistically? I think he'd be a fun guy to kick back at a barbecue with and have a beer. Just not quite Presidential material. The fear Conservatives feel when confronted with President Obama is BEYOND my ability to understand. For God's sake! Even CLINTON didn't catch this much heat! Settle down already! None of you bothered poking your heads above water when Bush was trampling NOT ONLY American rights but the rights of any sovereign nation he could reach out and touch! Suddenly, it's Tea Party this and "OMG DEY GONNA TAK ME GUNZ!!!!" that when the man is doing about the best ANYONE could hope to do with the clusterf**k he's been given.
In summation, despite your, and the rest of our patronage of ATS, NOBODY is going to take away your guns, turn the U.S. into a Socialist country, be the "Antichrist" etc etc etc. He's just another Pr4esident for better or worse, and happens to be half black. Ce'st la vie!

reply to post by dooper


The next recourse, I would think, is secession . . . which in turn, leads to The Shot Heard Around the World Redeux.

And you are right . . . maybe they should get our guns . . . after I have emptied them and am dead.

Originally posted by Zenagain
reply to post by dooper

 

. . . that when the man is doing about the best ANYONE could hope to do with the clusterf**k he's been given.
. . .

B-effin-S!

Yes, he was given a crap platter. But he keeps taking a bigger dump on it.

He is not doing the best he can in our Countries interest.

Prove....your....assertion....

This is the second line that is not necessary but this site insists on....

reply to post by Zenagain

None of you bothered poking your heads above water when Bush was trampling NOT ONLY American rights but the rights of any sovereign nation he could reach out and touch!

Are you serious!!!!!!

Where were you the past 8 years?

President Bush was called everything under the sun and more.. Many hundreds of posts were removed in violation of the T&C in regards to President Bush.

The threads are still available, all you need to do is a quick search..

You will find President Bush called

Monkey
Terrorist
War Criminal
Idiot
Fool
and every imaginable curse word..

No, I must inject here that Obama is the one getting the protection. It is the Liberals that have a problem with any criticism of Obama..

Semper

reply to post by TheAssociate

the entire transaction process is still governed by interstate commerce because of the concept that his actions affect the entire marketplace - including, most importantly, the ability of a farmer in a neighboring state to sell his wheat across state lines.

Translation: Colt, Smith & Wesson, Remington, etc. don't want a bunch of homegrown Montana gunmakers cutting down their market share. I doubt gunmakers support the Montana Law and would bet they are working behind the scenes to block it.

Another issue is patent infringement. Just because Motana could make guns, doesn't mean they could infringe on existing patents. Meaning you could get Colt 1911 copies but not newer designs.... No Montana Glocks.


And last, the ATF is responsible for issuing manufacturing licenses. What if they find a way to not approve any new manufacturing licenses?


Tough road ahead.

I don't mind criticism where it's "due". For example, his "Stimulus Package" to me was boneheaded. Several OTHER things he has done since becoming President were ALSO boneheaded to me. But to be fair, he's the President, and I'm some schmo in Louisiana.

Looking back with hindsight..... would you say that Bush was a GOOD President? By all means, you are allowed your opinion like the rest of us, but I think he garnered every bit of bad mouthing he got over the last 8 years. In fact, I think if people spend the next CENTURY! bad mouthing him it couldn't equal to what is deserved.

Obama on the other hand? President for slightly over 100 days. Benefit of the doubt perhaps? Maybe give him a year of the 4 he will serve? Even with all of this, I think the man was set up to become what he became. Dick Cheney carries a bigger burden in my estimation. George W. Bush was essentially as much of a patsy as Lee Harvey Oswald was. I feel bad for George Bush senior having to watch his own son be used that way.


Edit: "President Bush was called everything under the sun and more.. Many hundreds of posts were removed in violation of the T&C in regards to President Bush."

But how many of the people saying those things were "Republicans"? Probably very few. Those were the one's I was asking about poking their heads above water. I'll happily wait here whilst the people on this site... "Republicans".... who are badmouthing Obama link or copy/paste where they ALSO did the same to Bush over the last 8 years. I stand by what I said. I wait patiently.......

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Zenagain]

reply to post by Exmar

And last, the ATF is responsible for issuing manufacturing licenses. What if they find a way to not approve any new manufacturing licenses?

Great point. I'm sure TPTB are working on any number of ways to sidestep this, just in case the legislation gets upheld.

Montana may be forced to repeal this, or they may just rig the game to make the law meaningless, but they've struck a blow for liberty, whatever the outcome.


TA

Originally posted by Tentickles
I support any law that supports our Constitution.
And any organization that cites Columbine as a reference is retarded.

OMG you used the word retarded!!!

That has to be offensive to someone, somewhere. OMG!

Let's see if Washington DC is offended...

Shhhh... Let's watch and find out.

[edit on 5·14·09 by DrMattMaddix]

Originally posted by dooper
The entire interstate commerce clause is an abomination of the Constitution all by itself.

This was intentionally put in to enable the Fed to stick their noses into State's business.

And if that SOB appoints another liberal-assed Legislator on the bench of the Supreme Court, then there is no telling how this will go down.

You can bet your sweet bippy that they will pull out every possible weapon to make this a Constitutional crisis.

Now.

What are the State's recourse if a crooked, left-leaning, pansy Supreme Court decides in favor of the gun control activists?

Maybe they should get our guns . . .

He's thin-skinned... Honor the office, at least.

He'd only be replacing a liberal with a liberal. Nothing to fear.

I have tax issues; I could do it!!

Oh, wait, I'm not liberal. :sigh:

reply to post by Exmar

Perhaps the ATF would not have jusrisdiction in state matters. It is time for the Feds to get their noses out of our business. I said it when Bush was president, and I say it now. If ATF wants to come into Montana and tell them they can't guns, they might find that there are people who don't quite agree with them.
This is not to say it will turn violent. The citizens might simply tell Washington to go to Hell.

reply to post by Zenagain


See that is the problem isn't it?

Yes I liked and supported President Bush..

I also endured all the insults and degradation all of those years; as he did.

You like President Obama and support him..

Yet you rail against any criticism or name calling that was common place under President bush...

100 days or not, I am entitled to my opinion and if it is that Obama is a SOB, well that is my opinion. Just like it was someones opinion that President Bush was a Monkey...

You say you don't mind criticism when it "is due"; which begs the question...

How can YOU decide when my criticism is due?

Sorry about being off topic, but this is a very good and currently unresolved issue..

Semper

They've successfully employed the interstate commerce clause to stamp out production of a particular recreational 'pharmaceutical' in CA, even though said pharmaceutical was specified to be used only in intrastate commerce.

Originally posted by Zenagain

In summation, despite your, and the rest of our patronage of ATS, NOBODY is going to take away your guns, turn the U.S. into a Socialist country, be the "Antichrist" etc etc etc. He's just another Pr4esident for better or worse, and happens to be half black. Ce'st la vie!

The taking away the guns part remains to be seen, unless of course you're psychic.

What's Obama's race got to do with anything? Ain't nobody brought it up but you. Why is that? He's 100 % socialist, going by actions and statements, so I don't give a rat's fanny if he's half martian. His race is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Zenagain

the man is doing about the best ANYONE could hope to do with the clusterf**k he's been given.

He wasn't "given" the situation, he begged to take it, knowing what it was. And hasn't done that well with it either, I might add. But of course that's just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Originally posted by Exmar

And last, the ATF is responsible for issuing manufacturing licenses. What if they find a way to not approve any new manufacturing licenses?

Tough road ahead.

The Montana law is specifically written to insist that the firearms in question are to be manufactured, sold, and possessed solely in Montana, right down to requiring "made in Montana" be stamped on the reiciever. Gonna be tough for ATFE to do an end run around licensing completely intrastate commerce, interstate commerce clause notwithstanding. It'll go to court, fairly certainly. It should be interesting to see the arguments presented. Might cause them to tip their hands further.

Originally posted by Zenagain

But how many of the people saying those things were "Republicans"? Probably very few. Those were the one's I was asking about poking their heads above water. I'll happily wait here whilst the people on this site... "Republicans".... who are badmouthing Obama link or copy/paste where they ALSO did the same to Bush over the last 8 years. I stand by what I said. I wait patiently.......

[edit on 14-5-2009 by Zenagain]

My grandfather was a Republican. My father was a Republican. I was a Republican. I ended my own 40-odd year association with the Republicans because of Bush and his "neocon" cronies. That's not the Republican party I was raised with, and I won't be going back. They keep sending me stuff. "Please come home, all is forgiven". My arse. It's not up to them to forgive, it's up to me. They sold me out, and I've seen no signs of remorse, just window dressing to try to get me back. I was QUITE vocal about it. I've got a liberal friend, and that's about all we could agree on.

My main gripe? If I have folks circling my house, trying to break in to do harm, I'm not gonna waste time rigging up surveillance on my family. I'm gonna lock and load, and carry the battle forward. And I won't get sidetracked by some knothead on the corner shouting that he's got a bomb too, let him play!

He'd be dealt with when the main agressor was finished.

Government isn't any different. They wasted time surveilling and 'Patriot Act - izing' the 'family', while the band played on. They got sidetracked squashing one bug when they were supposed to be after another. And they kept squashing the bug long after it was dead, when they should have been focusing on the other.

Then they started propping up failures that should have been allowed to fail. Obama carries on the tradition. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

nenothtu out