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 ...
It might be a Pyrrhic victory for the feds. They get the ruling they want, but it just pisses off freedom lovers and state legislatures even more.
Besides, there’s the never-addressed conflict of interest issue. How many states are going to view as illegitimate the ruling of a branch of the federal government, in favor of the federal government? Perhaps state vs. fed issues should be decided by a panel of jurists from other states.
Your link doesn’t work for me.
Of course, the whole idea of the SCOTUS using case law as precedent is contrary to The Constitution's intent. Then again, the statists don't recognize The Constitution, anyway...
Unfortunately, we cannot count on Justice Scalia to uphold the Constitution on this. He voted correctly in the Lopez decision, but then, the War on some Drugs got the best of him and the Constitution with the Raich decision, where he voted that the Commerce clause included virtually everything.
Here is an article about it:
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance was once law of the land also.... This could get VERY interesting, and if OBAMA and CO. doesn’t stop inhaling and back off his assault on our nation, it may happen sooner rather than later and make this week look like the beginning of an avalanche come to bury them. So be it! Hope there are many more unConstitutional messes brought before the Supremes. We still have the majority on our side. (5-4 still wins, thank God!)
They do use that argument far to often... but I don’t think they’ve figured out that their use of it is a double edge sword. It will come back to haunt them sooner than they realize.
Good article. Succinct.
“he Commerce clause included virtually everything.”
That’s the major problem.
Long over due for over turning that one. Too much judicial idiocy has been meted out as “justice” because of it.
More like the feds will proclaim that Montana loses. Whether or not they actually do depends on the people and State officials of Montana. If the State of Montana is willing to actually defend the rights of the people they will tell the feds "NO, WE REALLY MEAN IT" and any agents sent to enforce their federal proclamation will be jailed.
Tenth Amendment and all that… We will see if Montana is serious about this.
John Paul Stevens full well understands the original intent of the Constituion...yet he choses to ignore it.... Why...he is beyond its reach...don't ya know.
Montana's bill doesn't explicitly criminalize continued federal efforts to enforce their laws (the bill New Hampshire is considering does!), but they might still be able to do so based on violating civil rights under color of authority or something like that.
Very good point. But somehow, the feds must be reined in! Over-regulation must stop.
It’s the New York dont-waste-your-Times
“SCOTUS just ruled that corporations are people and their money is speech.”
And they were wrong. A corporation is not speaking for all the people just a select few and their huge war chests can swat a true member of WE THE PEOPLE like a bug.
Just another 5-4 100% political decision based on the “Constitution is a living document” crappola.
This is the only real solution...defang by making any federal enforcement official criminally liable in any case where a state's constution or the civil rights of its citizens are violated.
I mean arrested on the spot and given a speedy trial....then and only then will they drop the "I'm a federal agent and I can do anything attitude...".
Southwest Airlines began offering unregulated fares in Texas in the 70s based on that principle. They won when challenged.
When a Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reidsky, or Obamy can deal a company a death-blow (dictate winners and losers), why should it be barred from defending itself?
The best defense is to develop and train a large enough jury pool to thwart prosecutors through nullification on gun issues.
With the government fingers (and money) in so many large corporations, I have to admit I am concerned about corporate money being used to elect politicians who will give them my money. Worse yet would be use of my money they already got to participate politically in the election of corporate welfare proponents.
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.