Will Supreme Court Uphold Firearms Freedom Act?

Political Realities WordPress Blog ^ | 11/26/13 | LD Jackson

[LD Jackson]

This is off the beaten path of Obamacare, but I believe it is just as important to the future of America. The basic foundation on which America was established is personal liberty and freedom. By natural extension, that foundation involves the rights of the individual states to do as they see fit, with minimal intervention from the federal government. At every turn, we have seen that intervention turn from minimal to intrusive. So much so, that the federal government controls a lot of what the states do, either by force, or by threat of what amounts to financial sanctions.

Case in point would be the Firearms Freedom Act passed by Montana in 2009. Gun rights activists are now asking the Supreme Court to hear their case, in the hopes that a majority will reverse a district court's ruling that the bill would violate federal firearms laws and regulations.

What the Montana Firearms Freedom Act does is simple. It declares that federal firearms laws do not apply to firearms that are kept in the state where they were manufactured. In other words, no interstate commerce takes place. That's the key argument in this case. If the firearms transactions are intrastate only, do they fall under the intrusive and onerous laws and regulations passed by the federal government?

The main advocate for the Supreme Court to hear, and hopefully uphold, the Firearms Freedom Act has been the Montana Shooting Sports Association. The President of MSSA is Gary Marbut and he lays out a compelling argument for the Supreme Court to do exactly that.

Fox News - MSSA president Gary Marbut has said he wants to manufacture a small, bolt-action youth-model rifle called the "Montana Buckaroo" for sale in Montana. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms told Marbut such a gun would be illegal under Montana law, prompting a lawsuit by the group against the U.S. attorney general.

Marbut said high court decisions dating back to 1942 dealing with certain interstate commerce need to be reversed. The request to the Supreme Court argues the rulings have allowed more concentration of power with the federal government, creating problems like more national debt and the potential for abuses of power.

"Without the centralization of so much regulatory power in the federal government, tyranny would be a lot less likely to occur," the argument reads.

After the stunning decision by the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare, even though John Roberts had to redefine the language to accomplish that esteemed goal, I wouldn't dare try to guess what the court will do. They may not even deign to hear the case, much less to rule in favor of the Firearms Freedom Act. For the sake of personal liberty and freedom and state's rights, I hope they do hear the case. If ever a 10th Amendment case existed, it is this case. Something has to be done to curb the power of the federal government and upholding the Firearms Freedom Act is a good place to start.

[Biggirl]

They will. The USSC has a history of doing so.

[Daveinyork]

They will, until someone convinces Roberts that firearms confiscation is actually a tax.

[rarestia]

This isn’t a firearms issue, this is a states’ rights issue, if there ever was one.

The Liberals LOVE to hang their hats on the “interstate commerce clause,” something most Americans don’t understand but are affected by daily. If no interstate commerce occurs, then can the Federal government really claim any level of jurisdictional authority?

The very obvious answer is, “No, they can’t.” What will be interesting to watch, assuming the SCOTUS takes up the case, is who among them will vote against it. I’m guessing 5-4 one way or another, and those dissenters will be the people who are most likely the wolves in sheep’s clothing, the Communist/Marxist/Progressive destroyers of America.

[Salvey]

no interstate commerce takes place.

As I recall, under the Federal Food and Drug Act, the courts have held that a drug is considered being in the flow of interstate commerce, and thereby subject to federal law, if any single ingredient of that drug was manufactured out of state. Certainly some of the raw materials for these firearms came from out of state.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...The Firearms Freedom Act passed by Montana in 2009
declares that federal firearms laws do not apply
to firearms that are kept in the state
where they were manufactured.
In other words, no interstate commerce takes place...”
-
Hasn’t it already been ruled that growing wheat on your own property
for your own consumption can be regulated as “interstate commerce”?

[PubliusMM]

I would not be surprised to see USSC find that the Firearms Freedom Act is NOT Constitutional. Using the notion of interstate versus intrastate commerce will likely not hold water with the Justices. The commerce cause has been extended well beyond its intended meaning, and will be called on again, in this case, to foist FedGov supremacy on the States.
Apart from that, the whole of FedGov has spit on States’ Rights for the last hundred years, and will continue until forced to stop.

I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think this will turn out well for us.

[NativeSon]

They will, until someone convinces Roberts that firearms confiscation is actually a tax.

ya know, I read his opinion and it is correct. Zerocare is a tax, a tax that didn't originate in the House, a tax that can't be challenged on Constitutional grounds until it goes into effect...

I for one plan on challenging that tax

[DoodleDawg]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms told Marbut such a gun would be illegal under Montana law, prompting a lawsuit by the group against the U.S. attorney general.

So is it illegal under Montana law? If so then federal law isn't the problem here, state law is. So get the state law changed.

[reed13k]

Didn’t they rule in the 30’s that a farmer who didn’t sell his own crops impacted interstate commmerce by withholding them and therefore was subject to the federal rules or some such...

[Cboldt]

The SCOTUS already ruled on the argument, holding that Federal law trumps state law on commerce clause principles. The case was in the 9th Circuit, where Reynolds was charged with a federal violation of the NFA. The gun in question was built in his home, and had never left the state of California. The 9th Circuit reversed the conviction. The feds appealed to SCOTUS, which ordered the 9th Circuit to reinstate the conviction, "see Raich."

[theBuckwheat]

Yet another point to rectify in the dysfunctional relationship between the people, the states and the federal government when we hold a Convention to Consider Amendments to the Constitution.

[i_robot73]

Not as if they uphold the Constitution...”Shall not be infringed” is pretty to understand, even for those with a ‘law degree’.

[i_robot73]

And, as most rulings, a bastardization of the clause AND meaning.

I’d just LOVE for anyone to bring up an I.C. question: If the I.C. can do XYZ, what does it PROHIBIT Congress from doing? If nothing, why all the other verbiage of the Constitution?

The whole notion that a single sentence can turn Fed. constraint on its head is laughable.

[zeugma]

Hasn’t it already been ruled that growing wheat on your own property

Yes. They are essentially asking that that particular ruling be overturned. I don't see it as being likely. The communists on the court will back precedent in this case fully because it is convenient for them to do so. At least one or two of the 'conservatives' on the court will back it as well, because they worship precedent, and give short shrift to liberty unless they are forced to. End result: probably 6-3 against. The dissent will make an interesting read, but will have no effective force of law.

[pierrem15]

Wickard v. Filburn (1940?)

Basically held that production of anything _might_ affect interstate commerce and therefore is subject to Congress' control.

The worst decision since Dred Scott.

Which is why the SCOTUS will never hear this case: a lower court will declare the Montana law unconstitutional under Wickard.

[pierrem15]

Under the current regime, 'states rights' mean nothing unless a state is actually willing to use force by arresting federal officials.

The Montana law-- like most other such measures-- was intended as symbolic Bubba bait.