Posted on 09/04/2010 9:14:26 AM PDT by marktwain
Helena, Mont. (AP) - A federal magistrate is recommending dismissal of a lawsuit filed by eight states seeking freedom from federal gun laws.
The recommendation now goes to the federal judge hearing the case.
The states argue they should decide which rules would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made inside their borders.
The federal magistrate sided Wednesday with the U.S. Department of Justice and gun control advocates who say the courts have already decided that Congress can set standards on such items as guns through its power to regulate interstate commerce.
The states in the lawsuit are Montana, Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
LIBs claim that under the Commerce clause, they can pass anything. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It is impossible for one clause to override an entire document.
Amendments are additions to the Constitution,so in a sense the last is first. Comparing the US Constitution to the Koran is like comparing a diamond to a piece of glass or gold to mica. Equivocation is best left to LIBs, the better for us to attack them.
On the subject of a federal judge ruling against the states, what should we expect? They have ruled consistently against the Constitution, sometimes overturned by the Supreme Court. States would be better off ignoring federal law.
According to the Constitution itself, amendments modify prior language. There is no vagary or middle ground, there is only choosing to correctly read the Constitution or not.
They're even called "amendments" for God's sake, so even if the body of the Constitution said "we can infringe on the RKBA all we want" or even "the RKBA SHALL be infringed" 2A would still govern. How would the lefties like it if we analyzed the 16th, 17th, 19th or 26th for conformity with the rest of the document?
Precisely. What if you were suing an individual and the judge and jury turned out to be your opponents employees? And then when the decision comes, it's "Our boss is right -- you lose"? Would you feel bound by that?
Interesting. There’s a couple states party to the suit that haven’t passed a FFA as far as I (or firearmsfreedomact.com) know (AL and SC), and a couple that have (AZ and AK) that aren’t plaintiffs.
The federal magistrate sided Wednesday with the U.S. Department of Justice and gun control advocates who say the courts have already decided that Congress can set standards on such items as guns through its power to regulate interstate commerce.
Big brother says you serfs just go back home and forget about these ideas of freedom and intrastate commerce.
federal statutes trump state on this as exhibited in the clause I highlighted.
states can grant all the gun rights to felons they like (and I think they should in qualified cases ) but the feds don't do that and if they catch you they will charge you federally and you will do serious time in a high level facility it being a gun crime (no FCC camp at Eglin) and a more lenient state statute will be no excuse
i don't think the states challenging the federal jurisdiction on gun laws will prevail in courts..it will be hard for the USSC to say federal constitutional protections void municipal gun restrictions and then turn around and say state leniency gun laws trump federal law...at least to me
it would sure turn things upside down if the states win...some good and some not so good...depends on where you live
loosening federal restrictions period would be the most effective means..a tall order admittedly
Read it again. That scenario occurs in a scenario where the state has restored his right to have a shotgun but not a handgun, which is the specific issue I mentioned in my original post. The state restoration has to be "across the board" for the ATF to honor it, as I said in the first place. Your reference says the same thing I am.
The distinction is that the states are saying this leniency applies only to weapons not traded in interstate commerce. For the moment they're not challenging the power of the feds to regulate weapons at all, per se.
“Suck it” — serfs
you are correct and that by the way is a change from when I looked into this some time ago (2001 or so)
and I know this law firm personally
thanks for the heads up
No problem. I didn’t realize it wasn’t always the way it is now, or at least since they stopped processing federal petitions. Thanks yourself for the heads up on that one.
In a nutshell. And hopefully one day still within most of our lifetimes, it will happen.
There's a reason for that. I am not a lawyer but I have had dealings in US District Court as a plaintiff in a civil suit against the Federal government. As it was explained to me by my lawyer at the time, a magistrate cannot hear a case. There's a little trick they do when a judge is first assigned to a case. They call both parties in before a magistrate. This meeting is held in private in the magistrates chambers and he (the magistrate) does his damnedest to get the parties to settle before the time and expense of a trial. During that meeting he offers his candid, and hence off the record, opinion on the case. In my case the magistrate told the US Attorney that there was no way he could see the judge ruling in their favor. They settled then and there. I suspect that this was a similar meeting. They need to hang tough and get before a judge.
The fact that NRA has previously taken a stand against the cause of theses states, in favor of Federal power. Its not enough for them just to preserve some limited form of Gun rights they have to impose it from Washington D.C. down everyone’s throat.
Meanwhile compromising our true victory for real gun rights at the state level.
All that being said Subjecting ourselfs to the Federal Governments own self-appointed courts on a matter of THEIR limitations is not exactly asking for a trail.
So go ahead and dismiss us, just as we should dismiss you right back. But don’t you dare try to extent your authority to intrastate affairs!
The same Federal court out of “necessity” has poked so many holes in the 2nd amendment that article of the constitution like much of the rest is now as worthless as the paper its written on. Thats what happens when you put the Fox(Federal Government’s own courts) in charge of the Constitutional hen house.
Hence the necessity of State nullification as being the final word on the meaning of the Federal Constitution.
” i don’t think the states challenging the federal jurisdiction on gun laws will prevail in courts..it will be hard for the USSC to say federal constitutional protections void municipal gun restrictions and then turn around and say state leniency gun laws trump federal law...at least to me”
And that’s just part of the reason why the McDonald cases was a horrible mistake.
But in any case USSC has never been generally inclined to rule against the boundless acts of their appointing masters.
The president and the Federal elected(thus self-serving politician) senate are not inclined to appoint judges that will in anyway limit their power. Just as judges are not inclined to limit their own arbitrary power as judges.
“it would sure turn things upside down if the states win...some good and some not so good...depends on where you live”
The States won’t win this is in the Federal Government’s own courts. This is largely a show trial for the Federal government to insist upon its absolute and unrestricted(unconstitutional) powers to impose its will.
It’s almost unheard of for them to actually rule against themselves, against their own power.
“loosening federal restrictions period would be the most effective means..a tall order admittedly”
Somehow I don’t think that will happen and even if it did the democrats will come right back in and impose even harsher restrictions.
If you want Gun freedom we have to put the Federal Government back into its place. That requires someone other then the folks appointed by the same power hungry Federal politicians enforcing the Constitutional limits of the same politicians authority.
The Doctrine of State Nullification fits the bill about as well as anything can.
It also happens to be the historic truth of the matter.
“Another biased judge who thinks that people don’t understand the difference between intrastate and interstate, or the Constitution and the King. The interstate commerce clause is just that, not the loophole that allows the Federal government to overrule States on every issue and make any law they like.”
All Federal judges by nature of their Federal appointers are biased in favor of Federal power and against both the people and their States.
I'm unsure whether a presumptuous federal mandate even deserves the respect of an official nullification passed in a statehouse. When a bratty child acts up beyond their proper station, the best course isn't always to sit them down and rationally explain why they're out of line. Sometimes it is, but not always.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.