Skip to comments.What’s Next After the Firearms Freedom Act Ruling?
Posted on 09/21/2013 7:05:10 PM PDT by Southern by Grace
After the recent Firearms Freedom Act ruling, there will be no firearms freedom in America, at least if the the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has anything to say about it. It agreed with a lower courts decision that if a gun is made in state, sold in state, that the federal power to regulate interstate commerce applies. Sadly, this is consistent with previous court rulings even though its not consistent with the original, legal meaning of interstate commerce under the constitution. A moderate law was passed in Montana that would prevent guns produced in the state from being subject to federal regulations under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. However, these type of common sense measures are not allowed by our federal overlords.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
Even if federal courts made a CORRECT ruling about some intrastate matter, it would still be moot, because it’s simply none of their business.
Unfortunately, in this case the 9th Circuit has stare decisis on their side (based on one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever handed down — yeah Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott were worse, but Wickard v. Filburn is down there on the role of dishonor .) I don’t think there’s even a 5-4 majority to be had to overturn Wickard, which is what this would take, not just chip away at it, fully overturn it.
Isn't the 9th U.S. Circuit Court usually referred to as the 9th "Circus" Court?
The most reversed Appeals court in the country?
Federalism / 10A ping!
These rulings are setting a double-edged precedent. If everything is interstate commerce then every government license, rule and permit affects interstate commerce. An innovative and pro-commerce President could have a field day clipping the wings of the local and state control freaks for harming interstate commerce. This may turn out to be a very good trend for us.
The supreme court agreed under the Lopez decision, then reversed itself with the insane Gonzales v. Raich decision.
Scalia is the one who changed sides.
Scalia is supposed to be pro second amendment. Maybe he can find that the states 10th amendment with the Second amendmnt overule the commerce clause.
Raich was the insane verdict that makes “interstate commerce” apply everywhere, way beyond what you imagine. It said, in no uncertain terms, the “interstate commerce” clause applied (say, allowing federal DEA “dynamic entry & seizure”) even to totally intra-state products legal within that state (say, a pot plant grown in a “medical pot” state under a doctor’s supervision), even when interstate made interstate commerce of it illegal (say, pot) because - get this - the legal intra-state activity REDUCED demand in illegal inter-state commerce, therefore affecting “interstate commerce”.
Yes, and it was Scalia that wrote it, I believe.
Crazy. The “war on some drugs” was more important to him than the Constitution.
the Ninth has been in the twilight zone for years
The Ninth IS the “Twilight Zone”.
Worked on cases that appeared before it and got some of the worst decisions (good and bad) that I’ve ever seen. For at least one judge, presenting documents of required contract signings for 24 out of 26 companies, and other documents which set the policy that “ALL” those companies had to sign them, was not enought to sanely imply that it ALSO HAD TO APPLY to the remaining two companies whose documents were not found at that time.
Cost the taxpayer $100,000,000 dollars. Hated losing that case because in a sane court, it would have been a slam-dunk win for the govt. But not in the Nutty Ninth.
And that is my story.
federalism is a house of cards if only the majority would realize
Yeah. Scalia, who’s good most of the time, has this disturbing tendency to issue “but what if that inconveniences the cops?” rulings, as if that were more important than whether the rights of private citizens were unnecessarily limited. If the cops wanted to be the top dogs, they should have stayed private citizens. The Constitution had already been in force for centuries when they joined the force. They can’t very well express shock and dismay at its contents now.
That’s why I’ve never understood all the fawning over Scalia here.
He says the right things, often votes the right way, but at heart he’s a statist, not a conservative.