Posted on 12/09/2009 2:37:47 PM PST by Still Thinking
The February 2010 issue of GUNS Magazine is online, and a letter by NRA Life Member David Lundeen regarding my Firearms Freedom Act "Rights Watch" column caught my eye. He cited the September 2009 issue of their American Hunter magazine, and observed:
[I]t is clearly stated “Firearms Freedom Act “ supporters have never planned to test these laws in criminal cases, and no one who puts himself in that situation should expect support from the NRA.”
It's true. I'm a Life Member and get American Rifleman, and it's on page 18. Their rationale?
[T]his kind of litigation faces major obstacles–mainly because the Supreme Court has given Congress a very long leash when it comes to activities that could affect interstate commerce....Because of these issues, the NRA will continue to focus on the other kinds of pro-gun legislation described in these pages.[No] one should try to take advantage of the Montana or Tennessee 'Firearms Freedom Acts' without consulting a competent attorney and being prepared to pay large legal fees. Anyone who makes firearms commercially, without complying with federal law, is likely to be prosecuted.
—my suspicion is that the “Firearms Freedom” acts will have the same legal standing as “nullification”— another word I see every now and then-—
cowards
I like the spirit of the laws but never gave them much chance of surviving - no matter how much money was spent to defend them.
A victory would simply open too many other doors.
Well, I’m sure they’ll hit the federal courts sooner or later. If the feds find the states are within their rights, well and good. But the federal courts are essentially a part of one of the parties in the dispute. If they find in favor of the entity that signs their paychecks, how many people in state government and among the public are likely to view that decision as binding?
There is simply no way state laws can trump federal law unless the feds allow it. Remember the “supremacy” clause of the Constitution? Anyone who challenges this will spend Christmas in the “gray bar Hilton.”
Can the same be true of totally intrastate Title III weapons? The marijuana directive sets good legal precedence.
Or unless a substantial portion of the states view the feds finding in their own favor as illegitimate, especially since it furthers current federal overreaching, and simply ignore them. What are the feds going to do, start a shooting war?
This is going to take tens of millions, possibly hundreds of millions of dollars.
Other than moral support, the NRA should stay out of it, as it would bankrupt them.
Interesting point, but remember that the feds have control over interstate highways and could prevent firearms, parts, or ammo being shipped into, say, Montana. When Glocks, Sigs, etc., become impossible to buy or repair, FFL holders will press for a settlement, lest they go out of business.
Interesting point, but remember that the feds have control over interstate highways and could prevent firearms, parts, or ammo being shipped into, say, Montana. When Glocks, Sigs, etc., become impossible to buy or repair, FFL holders will press for a settlement, lest they go out of business.
Good point, at least as it stands now. If several other states, say 10-15 pass similar laws, the feds job starts to look like more of a pain in the ass. If states bordering MT pass similar laws and refuse to allow the fed embargo of MT to take place at their border, the landscape might start to look different. You’d end up having contiguous multi-state enclaves free from interference. And the whole idea is to allow in-state manufacture. If they’re tooled up to make components for new firearms, they can make replacement parts as well.
Thought you all might find this thread interesting.
The feds get a kick out of looking like pains in the a— note the IRS. Also, remember most of the country would probably side with the feds. Montana, for example, would be seen as handing guns to criminals. And if they made replacement parts there would be issues of patent infringement, which would give the feds another hook into them.
No, I meant it would be a PITA for them. Imagine 10-15 states, mostly not bordering one another, strewn throughout the US, that they have to monitor. That, my friend is a pain in the butt. There are also highways that cross state lines that are not part of the Interstate system, so the feds would lack that excuse for preventing transport of certain items past that point. They’d probably do it or try to do it anyway, but the interstate highway excuse wouldn’t do much for them because there’s too many alternatives. It also adds to the PITA aspect. Monitoring interstate highways every place they cross a state line is a big job; do so for ALL highways would be a herculean undertaking.
I also think you might be misreading public sentiment. Increasing numbers of people in and out of government are finally getting fed up with feral overreach. When was the last time “sovereignty” resolutions and laws were circulating. Two states have already enacted them, 10 or 15 more have introduced them, and legislators in another 15 or so intend to do so in the next legislative session. Contempt for federal meddling seems like its at historical levels, whatever that level may be.
Sorry I misunderstood your point about PITA. I will say you’ve made some good points, and one good thing about these laws is that they serve as a “shot across the bow,” something that was sorely lacking in 1993 when Clinton and Reno launched their assault on gun owners. Comrade Obama knows that if he goes after the Second Amendment, he will be in for the fight of his life.
Of course, this is why federal judges have life tenure and salary protection...
Thanks. And guns are almost a symbolic issue. That and so many other issues would be improved if the feds got back in their Constitutional box. Obviously no one with the mindset to enter government in the first place is going to cede power willingly, so the debate shift to finding the strategies the states and people can use to force them to do so.
The “Commerce Clause” has been so abused, going back to FDR, that it could be ripe for the picking. Look for a major challenge regarding the constitutionality of Obamacare if, God forbid, it passes.
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.