Posted on 05/13/2009 7:09:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The right to bear arms is famously and specifically referenced in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Alas, for advocates of the right, the language of the amendment gets tangled up in the regulating of militias and the interpretation of commas. Now a multistate movement is trying to find more robust constitutional support in another amendment, which makes no mention of weaponry at all.
The 10th Amendment declares, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It inspired the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion that swept the West three decades ago, preventing the federal takeover of public lands pushed by the Carter Administration and propelling the self-proclaimed Sagebrush Rebel, Ronald Reagan, to the presidency. Now the Amendment is being invoked by pro-gun advocates to press for state, rather than federal, regulation of gun manufacturers.
Montana has passed a law allowing local gun manufacturers to sidestep federal regulations as long as the weapons they make are sold within the territory of the state. "It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer said, according to the AP, as he signed the bill into law in mid-April. "I like big guns, I like little guns, I like pistols, I like rifles, and I would like to buy a gun that's made in Montana."
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
The 10th Amendment as a battlefield?
It, and its sister the 9th, have been stomped into the ground so badly that they can’t even raise their heads.
You know the Republican Party has testicles the size of bacterium after reading Governor Schweizter’s - A FRIGGIN’ DEMOCRAT - comments on this.
How bad do you want it to work?
>>But Heller breathed some life back into the 2nd, itself the guarantor of our system of government.
We need to take solace where we can. I am glad it is Souter to be replaced. A lib:lib exchange is no net loss.
If one million armed citizens (much less than 1% of the populace) marched on Washington, DC, we’d get whatever we wanted without firing a shot.
Yeah sure - that's why the Supreme Court hides under their desks whenever a 2A case comes before them - because they don't know what it means.
This sounds more series than a tea party. Count me in.
L
>>If one million armed citizens (much less than 1% of the populace) marched on Washington, DC, we’d get whatever we wanted without firing a shot.
>
>This sounds more series than a tea party. Count me in.
Serious... if you want people to take you seriously then you need to be serious, not series.
IIRC, they were mostly unarmed.
This is the best strategy freedom lovers have had in decades.
First, what Montana has done is taken away the “Interstate Commerce” clause from the Feds, who have misused that element of the USC since FDR’s days. By passing a law that a handgun manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to a resident in Montana makes it purely a Second Amendment issue, with not strings attached that the Feds can use to restrict the handgun.
Second, it is a brilliant combination of the Second and Tenth Amendments. Attempts that focus solely on one aspect of a state’s sovereign rights usually fail because there is some precedent that enables a higher court to overturn it. By incorporating the rights guaranteed “to the people” and “to the states” into a single legislative act ensures that the legislation has two sturdy legs.
Third, this is being passed by a Democrat governor in a state that, although it is fairly free, has a large number of wealthy liberals (think Robert Redford). To oppose this would enable those who support the governor (that is, liberals and conservatives) to ban together to fight judicial tyranny.
Let me put it this way. If what Montana is doing does not work, the only realistic option is the Texas option: secession. Taking away the income tax from the Feds’ simply isn’t realistic.
I'll tell you what. You get started organizing your armed march on DC. Let's schedule it for July 4th.
Get back to me a month from now.
L
Don’t tempt me...
Temptetion? Me? Why perish the thought Mrs. McGillicutty.
The use of “series” for “serious” is a running inside joke here.
I agree. What is the matter with saying the Supreme Court erred in it’s decision (if it comes to that), this is a Montana option as guaranteed by the Constitution. Enforcing any federal statute on guns purchased in Montana, manufactured there and bought by the citizens of Montana shall be a felony and federal agents will be subject to arrest.
"It is part of the populist state-sovereignty movement, the sense there is so much power in Washington," says Stephen P. Halbrook, a Virginia attorney who has argued several important Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court, including, most recently, a successful case overturning the Washington, D.C., gun ban.
No mention of the landmark individual right part of the decision.
In fact, they act as though Heller was never decided at all:
Alas, for advocates of the right, the language of the amendment gets tangled up in the regulating of militias and the interpretation of commas.
Not since the Heller decision it hasn't gotten tangled up like that.
If that were to happen, I don’t think THAT ONE would be cracking any jokes about it afterward like he has and the DUh-bama zombies have been doing since April 15th.
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.