Thread: Montana to supercede fed gun laws. 10th Amendment.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I mentioned this in another topic, at least about Texas, and i think it could pass in Texas and Montana, and probably even Alaska. My question is how will the federal government try to step in and supersede it?

The components and materials required to build the firearms come from other states... Interstate commerce is the clause that makes or breaks most laws.

A bunch of parts are not a firearm according to BATF regulations until a receiver is built. This is why machine gun 'kits' can be sold over the internet without any regulation. They are not operating firearms and only the receiver is the actual firearm.

If they want to try and say that about the metal they can, but it isn't a firearm until the receiver is built. The steel could be used for any number of things, not just firearms so I don't thing this would come into play.

Soy, like Blake said there are many components to a gun, and most do not require any type of federal registration. You could just about buy all the parts individually and never have to register anything, so if just the receiver is manufactured in state then the state law complies with all fed law.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I mentioned this in another topic, at least about Texas, and i think it could pass in Texas and Montana, and probably even Alaska. My question is how will the federal government try to step in and supersede it?

The same way they always do...ignoring their official charters and claiming rights over other issues. Good for Montana....Next I want my damn incandescent light bulbs back...How else am I going keep the dog house warm in the winter?

Oh I know about that. BUT, they buy the things they need to make the guns from other states. How they regulate the firearms then could be linked to the fair cost of those materials. SO, somebody could suggest that the way the guns are sold will affect the value of those materials, thereby affecting interstate commerce.

That is all I am saying...if they need a way to break a law, it is almost always based on how it affects interstate commerce. They could make it an argument about those guns driving down gun costs in other states somehow too...

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Oh I know about that. BUT, they buy the things they need to make the guns from other states. How they regulate the firearms then could be linked to the fair cost of those materials. SO, somebody could suggest that the way the guns are sold will affect the value of those materials, thereby affecting interstate commerce.

That is all I am saying...if they need a way to break a law, it is almost always based on how it affects interstate commerce. They could make it an argument about those guns driving down gun costs in other states somehow too...

The raw materials can be regulated if they cross state lines, but that does not justify the federal government then regulating what is made in the state and what stays in the state.

If the firearm is only able to be legally owned in Montana then it cannot affect prices in other states since they cannot compete with those other states.

It is just like if I were to make my own firearm for my own use out of parts. It really isn't any of the governments business if I make a legal firearm, so long as I do not sell it or use it to break the law. If I sell it then they can get me for manufacturing for sale, but if I use it to plink or hunt they have no reason to mess with me. Montana is doing the same thing but on a state level.

I never said that it justifies it. Just that most laws are centered around interstate commerce. Environmental laws exist solely based on interstate commerce.

It goes back a lot further than the medical marijuana lawsuits in California though. You have to look back to the great depression. The congress under FDR's created the Agriculture Adjustement Act in 1933 which put limits on how much farmers could produce of certain essential cash crops. There was language in the law that caused it to be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. It was later re-written and passed again in 1938.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricul...Adjustment_Act

That lead to the lawsuit Wickard v Filburn, which basically revolved around this law. Claude Filburn exceeded his allotted quota for wheat production. He never intended to SELL the wheat, he used it to feed livestock, and ground it into wheat for his own personal use as well as reserving some for the next year's planting. SCOTUS ruled that even though he didn't INTEND to sell it to the market, he COULD sell it to the market, and thus he was fined for exceeding the AAA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

This case (and others based on it) are the basis on which the Federal Government has usurped power away from the states. Unless that case is reversed, the states will never again be able to create laws that overrule Federal laws, unless the Feds decide to look the other way.

The genie is out of the bottle and unless someone finds a way to put it back in, laws like this will be as worthless as the paper they are printed on.

I just read about the Texas bill on the local paper website, and their claim is that since the products are made, bought, and sold in Texas it is intrastate commerce, so interstate commerce laws would not apply.

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

I never said that it justifies it. Just that most laws are centered around interstate commerce. Environmental laws exist solely based on interstate commerce.

State environmental laws can do the same thing as the Federal ones and wouldn't have anything to do with interstate commerce.

Really this would bring power back to the states as it would allow states to regulate themselves instead of the federal government doing it through the 'loophole' of everything falling into interstate commerce.

Being more of an anarchist (see definition, I don't mean total anarchy...not you Soy of course ) I think that local and individuals should always have more power than a dominating super-government. A ruling in favor of Montana could definitely change things, and I think it could only be for the better.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I just read about the Texas bill on the local paper website, and their claim is that since the products are made, bought, and sold in Texas it is intrastate commerce, so interstate commerce laws would not apply.

Someone will show examples of how it could be sold outside of Texas whether it was intended to or not. WileE's post makes great points about this sort of thing. The only time a state government gets away with modifying federal laws is when they make them more strict, not less.