8th state says guns beyond feds' control(AK)

WND ^ | 28 May, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[EGPWS]

The DFL are the Communists that other Socialists look at as being “a bit extreme”.

Well placed words with an uncanny accuracy DC.

[EGPWS]

We need to go beyond this and gut the commerce clause completely. It is too easy to abuse.

A tough row to hoe but it needs hoeing for sure.

[going hot]

This is fantastic. Can we have this in California too?

LOL

Pack a lunch, It's going to take a while.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks Army Air Corps!

I could be wrong but this appears to be a new twist: The Alaska law states in part, Alaska must defend any Alaskan who is prosecuted by the federal government under their authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Alaska FINALLY got it done! Moose anyone?

Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.

I've stopped monitoring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.

Additional Resources:

Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Sovereign States
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

[Just Lori]

It will never come to WA. That’s for sure!

[NTHockey]

I fail to understand the LIBs reasoning. Their claim is that under the commerce clause they can legislate anything. How can one clause in the Constitution overrule the entire document? If it is that powerful, why bother with the rest of the Constitution?

The other argument, that the laws inhibit interstate commerce is more ridiculous. Is the federal government arguing to maintain the flow of guns across state lines?

No matter how the courts rule on this matter, it won’t be the final word. Neither side shows any sign of backing down. And a court ruling will only intensify the battle.

[2001convSVT]

You are right, the only thing that California would do is declare that they are exempting the the state from the 2nd amendment and rounding up all privately held firearms.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

We now have a large faction of government hostile to the intents of the Constitution. SCOTUS isn't reliable, and much of the voting populace is ignorant.. The only way to preserve our freedoms may be acts of open defiance.

The entire premise of the nation is based on respect for the Constitution, the rule of law. Lacking that we are just another unstable democracy waiting for tyranny to rise.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Seems everyone is afraid to touch that one. I don't believe the NFA has protected any property or saved a single life, but some eight decades on, legislative types and the media remain keeping the hype going on evil machine guns.

NFA arms are precisely the types the second amendment was intended to protect the right to keep and bear. It was never about hunting or sport, ever.

[Clinging Bitterly]

packing.org used to be a great resource but it disappeared sometime in the last couple of years.

Now, http://www.usacarry.com/ seems to have filled the gap.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Something that is coming out in recent arguments from SAF and MSSA is the point that the second amendment (and also the 10th and the 14th), being amendments that appeared after the commerce clause, necessarily affect, amend, and restrict the commerce clause. And of course that is true.

Now, Holder and Company are throwing out the line that all these states getting on this bandwagon might someday affect interstate commerce. WTF ever. Federal gun laws do that already, and those subsequent amendments trump, it seems to me.

It is a tough situation because too many unconstitutional federal laws have been allowed to stand for too long. Regardless of what happens with regard to this particular states' rights issue, we need to continue pushing back to repeal those old laws. It is their existence that gives weight to the administration's argument and nothing that is actually in the constitution.

[NTHockey]

>>Now, Holder and Company are throwing out the line that all these states getting on this bandwagon might someday affect interstate commerce.<<

This is like those bad sci-fi movies where you are guilty of a crime before you actually commit the crime. The fallacy is that if you are punished for a crimme you commit in the future, the crime never gets committed and you are punished for something that never happens. Worse, all memory of that crime is erased.

[DMG2FUN]

What does the “commerce clause” have to do with the right to bear arms? Why do people that claim to be protecting the 2nd amend always feel the need to use other laws to do it? Does the “commerce clause” affect the sell of books and movies?

[Ken H]

Since the New Deal, Fedgov has claimed that whatever has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce makes it subject to congressional regulation. Congress uses the Commerce Clause to enact gun control legislation. I count at least 3 violations of the Constitution in these laws - the Commerce Clause, the Second Amendment and the Tenth Amendment.

Scalia's ELASTIC view of the Commerce Clause is well suited to an expansive fedgov:

"...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

J. Scalia, concurring, Raich

[SWAMPSNIPER]

They claim that guns and ammo are sold in interstate commerce and that gives government the power to regulate them. This needs to be challenged just like all government power grabs.

[SuperLuminal]

Good news...Tipping point should be around state # 20 (IMHO)

[DMG2FUN]

Why doesn’t this “commerce clause” affect the 1st amend things. You know books, movies, and music items.