Posted on 01/22/2010 6:59:46 AM PST by Still Thinking
The United States government has filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation. The suit was filed the support the Montana Firearms Freedom Act which declares that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.
The argument is that the Federal government has overstepped its authority in attempting to regulate and tax firearms that never cross a state border. The Feds counter that it is a valid exercise of commerse power because even sales of firearms that don't cross state lines have an effect on interstate commerce.
This Motion to Dismiss is the first response in what is expected to be a long hard fight by both sides and is just one battle in a larger struggle for increased State's Rights. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming have all introduced similar bills and nearly a dozen states have movements underway to follow.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The act and legislation was signed by Brian Schweitzer, a democrat.
States rights’
PING
As does Montana,
Look, Numbers are very deceiving.Idahoans have most of our State forest under { Federal control} which makes up most of our State.
100.00 Dollars per man hour worked
200.00 per Axe or shovel
It becomes easy to see.
If Idaho had control of OUR land[s]- do you really think that the cost of lumber would be so high? Not to mention - The Federal agencies and their lovely Wolf experiment and our Elk populations..
Is that you, Justice Thomas?
I wish.
Yep.
Do you remember the one hour time slots about Clinton - Courtesy of our NRA ? :)
We/My family send off allot of cash to Gun Rights organizations. Libtard’s have the major media - we have our hard earned dollars.
Although if this many states are introducing measures, you’d think they could go for a Constitutional Amendment. In which case the feds might lose. (But, not with the current Congress.)
The feds apparently want a society of placid doped-up unarmed adult children. Easier to control.
Hey, don't fight it...Obama got to be president that way.
Thanks. I was going to say that the commerce clause has been used VERY successfully by the Feds to prosecute folks in CA, even though CA passed the Medical Marijuana laws. Here’s where we see a disconnect with SO many people on the “right” side. You can’t regulate some things and enforce it using the commerce clause and not expect it to be used against you in others circumstances you may be bothered by.
Where did you get the idea that the feds have surrendered when it comes to marijuana? Last I heard they were still arresting people in California and prosecuting them... Has there been a change in that I missed?
Seeing as how the metal machining/manufacturing industry is suffering this could be a VERY good thing for a lot of people here in the US. I wouldn’t mind moving to Montana (or other states that pass laws like this), and I’m sure my husband wouldn’t mind using his skills to work on guns, either! :)
I agree, it would seem to be a clause intended to prevent un-fair trade practices some states might employ against other states in 'commerce'. However, it seems too often directed at private enterprises while ignoring state actions that create 'unfair' trade such as the ban in California on magazines exceeding 10 rounds (Feinstein).
Had manufacturers of magazines refused to sell anything larger than a 10 round magazine to Californians, the Feds would be all over them. The state of California does it, and it's okie dokie. Nothing to see here. Move along- even though 'consumers' are not being served by the market- which is at the heart of 'commerce'.
As if the number of rounds in a magazine determines it's inherent lethality (and it doesn't- a single-shot can ruin your day), restrictions on such do indicate an inherent agenda which promotes collectivist ideals over individual freedoms that ought to be of a greater concern.
As Americans, we are at great risk of losing that which distinguishes us from other societies when we allow, at a whim, those acts which deny individual freedoms (in the interest of the 'collective') whose participation in our unique American experiment have, for the most part, been un-inspiring to say the least, and deadly when wrong.
Bart Simpson uses, "Get out'a the way, I'm Hitler", when his desires are obstructed. What we need to send to Washington are people who might likewise use, "Get out'a the way, I'm George Washington", when confronted with the inertia that befouls our freedom.
'Till then, we in California will continue to defend ourselves against 'anything less than eleven banditos at a time' until the commerce cavalry comes to our rescue.
Yes. The rape of the Constitution known as Raich was vigorously pursued by the Bush administration, first being known as Ashcroft v. Raich and then Gonzales v. Raich. SCOTUS found that their level of government may do whatever the hell they want to and state laws be damned, surprise, surprise.
Now Obama's DOJ has adjusted course slightly, declaring that pursuing cases in states where it's been legalized isn't "the best use of resources". See, Obama can even screw this up. No change in the law, just a change in emphasis. US Attorneys can still pursue them if they want to, and I don't think "But your boss said this isn't the best use of resources" exactly amounts to a strong affirmative defense.
Only a few fellow "rights extremists" agreed but most inferred that I was an idiot for thinking it could ever happen...
Yet, here we are.
Its a nice bit of fantasy to think that there is a small chance that I may have said something that was seen by someone of political significance that made them seriously consider the issue.
...which is complete horse manure, of course. This could be another fun exercise for the Supreme Court: restore the First Amendment this week, restore the Second Amendment next week.
Whew... That is unbelievable. That 1942 court upheld the Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Farmer Filburn wanted to grow extra wheat on his own farm for his own use and was prohibited by the government! The communists were active even back then. I’m a little surprised the Filburns of the country didn’t start blowing the revenuers away.
Well, if you didn’t contribute to the idea directly at least know you were in good company!
Hmm. They could make a serial out of it. “Restoring this week’s Amendment”
Seems like a reasonable states rights case.
Like everything else the feds get involved in all things not spelled out in the Constitution. Things the feds have NO business getting involved in.
Hell, didn’t we fight a civil war over just such States rights?
The federal govt is out of control. About 60 percent of all american govts. should be cut.
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.