Should the Sherman Antitrust Act be invoked to protect against Gun Control measures?

It appears to me that Gun Control measures represent a combination and/or conspiracy in "restraint of trade" in firearms commerce and would give the government a "monopoly" of force over the people. One could argue that monopoly refers to commerce and not force but the definition of monopoly can be made to fit the act and there are real damages in a) denial of availability of certain firearms, b) the escalation of price of grandfathered weapons or weapons in which further gun control laws are expected and c) the cost of hiring security if one cannot protect himself (if handguns are outlawed).

Provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act:
Trusts, etc in restraint of trade.
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, (or territories or the District of Columbia as added) is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony (penalties up to $10 million if a corporation, etc).

Altho it is difficult to sue the government it can be argued that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is also a Corporation and thus is subject to the laws regulating same. "Contracts" could be construed to cover Legislative Acts and Foreign Treaties as well. Fundamentally laws are contracts between the people (via their representatives) and their government (charged with enforcement). If there are any Antitrust attorneys out there who care to research this or other contract lawyers who can shed some usable case law then that would make for an interesting discussion. If the government (thru the executive branch) can interpret the law to suit themselves (like "non-sporting" shotguns being "Destructive Devices", etc) then why cant "We, the People?"

So my question to ATS is should or could the Antitrust Laws be used to protect against Gun Control?

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


I like where you're going with this.

That said I think we're in pretty sad condition as a country when need to rely on additional legislation to clarify/bolster the Bill of Rights.

The state already has a monopoly of force over the people. That's what it is. The fact that it can even enter into a consequential debate with itself over gun control is evidence of this. Disarming the population is simply a natural (not the right word) progression of this monopoly.

The corporations (not referring to the United States government here) that you'd think would be affected by gun control the most (the manufacturers) are, in all likelihood, in on the whole thing. They probably love this. I mean, you can't tell me that the big wigs at Winchester don't see a purchase order for 40 million rounds of hollow-point pistol ammunition from the Department of Transportation and don't even consider, Gee, what on earth does the Department of Transportation need with 40 million rounds of ammunition designed to do as much damage to human tissue as possible? They know exactly what's going on, and stand to make an incredible amount of money off of it.

reply to post by NthOther

The Second Amendment was designed to ameliorate the potential monopoly of force by the government. Guns are the great equalizer (well, not equal but more balanced). If the Second Amendment is shot down (pun intended) then the government will have a "monopoly" of force. As to the big gun/ammo manufacturers they certainly are enjoying record sales (and the ones with the govt ammo contracts even more so) BUT if the manufacture and sale of semi-auto firearms to civilians are banned their civilian sales will plummet to 0....and their profits will then be limited to the more competitive government contracts....not in their long term best interest.