Feds: States' Growing Gun-Rights Movement a Threat

[MaineCWPtraining]

Attorneys argue laws 'void' because of impact on 'interstate commerce'

May 20, 2010

The federal government is arguing in a gun-rights case pending in federal court in Montana that state plans to exempt in-state guns from various federal requirements themselves make the laws void, because the growing movement certainly would impact "interstate commerce."

The government continues to argue to the court that the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution should be the guiding rule for the coming decision. The argument plays down the significance of both the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 10th Amendment provision that reserves to states all prerogatives not specifically granted the federal government in the Constitution.

READ MORE

 

[pdm]

According to the feds, farting in one state impacts commerce in another. Not a big surprise that they'd go after the states on this.

 

[P-14]

Our tax dollars are funding this stupid action by .gov.............

 

[atmay]

Wasn't the whole point of these laws that firearms which were NOT part of interstate commerce (ie, stayed within the state) were exempt?

 

[cb1]

Wasn't the whole point of these laws that firearms which were NOT part of interstate commerce (ie, stayed within the state) were exempt?

Pretty much. But the commerce clause has been stretched to cover, well, absolutely everything and anything congress wants, which means it's their best chance of winning

 

[RKG]

I'm about to do this all from memory, so be kind:

You have to go back to a case called something like Wichard v. Filburn, probably in the 1930s. Farmer in State One intended to grow wheat in State One and sell it in State One. Feds wanted to prevent him from doing so, because it would interfere with farmers in State Two being able to sell wheat in State One, and thus "affected" interstate commerce. Court bought the argument, and thus created a syllogism under which the "Commerce Clause" has no limits.

Which, in fact, was the accepted wisdom until a couple of years ago, when Court struck down a Safe School Zone statute. Congress's reaction was to enact a much more limited statute.

Whole question goes back to what the Constitution says, which is that Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Linguistically, the "power to regulate commerce" is differernt from the power "to regulate anything in the world that has some conceivable 'affect' on commerce, however distended."

What the courts will do in these cases (or, rather, what they should do) is evaluate whether the federal laws are within or beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, period. If the answer is yes, then the state statutes fail under the Supremacy Clause; if it is no, then the federal statute is invalid and the states have a clear field on which to play. That is to say, the issue is not whether state law trumps federal law, but rather whether federal law fails of its own excess.

'Twill be interesting.

 

[Twigg]

I'm about to do this all from memory, so be kind:

You have to go back to a case called something like Wichard v. Filburn, probably in the 1930s.
<snip>

'Twill be interesting.

Interesting indeed and a quick Google show's you're close enough;
WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Great post. Reps inbound.

 

[Pete85]

I'm about to do this all from memory, so be kind:

You have to go back to a case called something like Wichard v. Filburn, probably in the 1930s. Farmer in State One intended to grow wheat in State One and sell it in State One. Feds wanted to prevent him from doing so, because it would interfere with farmers in State Two being able to sell wheat in State One, and thus "affected" interstate commerce. Court bought the argument, and thus created a syllogism under which the "Commerce Clause" has no limits.

I thought the case was that the land owner in State 1 was growing wheat for his own personal use, and the Farmer in State 2 said "No. If he's allowed to grow his own, that affects my ability to sell to him across state lines". IIRC, there was no commerce taking place on the side of the guy who was told to stop growing wheat, and that it was only a home garden for personal use.

 

[the_doctor]

The New Deal lawyers developed commodities as a way to control all markets regardless of whether items cross state lines. The SJC expanded the commerce clause to its broad status by forking over to the feds on a very similar set of facts. However, the facts were about farm products. By buying a commodity from a local producer you have effectively denied interstate commerce. Just think of it as the new deal.