Skip to comments.Feds: States' growing gun-rights movement a threat
Posted on 05/21/2010 6:22:38 AM PDT by marktwain
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 thefederal government in the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
This administration can not accomplish their agenda if innocent, law abiding citizens can own guns. What’s that tell you.... It is pretty clear that the 2A reads “shall not be infringed”. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t they “understand”.
It bodes well that such questions are finally being adjudicated.
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.
Please consider joining the Obamacare Class Action lawsuit:
Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit (deadline to join is May 31)
"The purpose of this lawsuit is to reverse Supreme Court precedent related to the Commerce clause and thereby overturn Obamacare. The Supreme Court has historically erred in its interpretation of the Constitutional role of the Federal Government. Recent Supreme Court rulings hint that they may be willing to take another look at Commerce clause precedent. Obamacare is so over reaching and so onerous, that it must either be repealed in Congress or struck down in the courts. We must fight this on both fronts. This is our historic opportunity to reverse Americas trend toward Socialism by overturning this unconstitutional precedent.
If you are a US citizen and agree with the goal of this lawsuit, please join us. If you have concerns about joining, please review the FAQs for more information. Every person we add strengthens the voice of "We the People".
Montana, and other states enacting this legislation have said, in effect, “if it stays within this state, interstate commerce is, by definition, not involved.” If a person were to buy a firearm in one of these states and then transport it to another state for purposes of sales, the individual would have been involved in interstate commerce. Until that happens, the firearm should not be subject to Federal laws.
If the Feds think that States’ growing gun-rights movement is a threat now, just wait until a Revolution breaks out.
LOL, what choice do they have? Whether they like it or not they govern at our pleasure. When we withdraw our consent will they listen or simply use force? If the later it becomes a matter of ruling vs governing. I know there’s a fair %age who will roll over and take it. Then there’s that other group...
And if they did offer them in your state, would you buy an intrastate fully auto rifle, if it meant you were violating a conflicting federal law (ie. would you be a voluntary test case)?
The one's for whom 'rolling over' means shooting prone?
No that group would be those who just lay down for that sort of thing. ;)