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 ...
Well, Idaho probably gets more fed money that it sends in but a lot of States that are signing onto this send in more money than they get back.
If the states that are throwing in on this get together and agree to cut off, oh, lets say fuel and road tax money to the feds and keep it in their respective States and distribute the money for road repair via direct private contractor bids, that would damn well get the feds attention. What would be more important to the feds? Some measure of control over Citizens owning guns, which they do anyway or keeping the cash cow of fuel and road taxes pumping money to dee-cee?
It always goes back to if the States really mean to make this stick, whether or not it is going to pizz off dee-cee, because brother it is GOING to pizz off dee-cee...
With their reasoning, what doesn’t potentially effect interstate commerce?
They are using interstate commerce to nullify the Bill of Rights....which ammends the original Constitution.
IIRC Wickard was one of the decisions handed down when the Supreme Court assumed lap dog status after FDR [spit] threatened to add three more justices because they correctly were finding his New Steal pogroms unConstitutional. So, an illegitimate decision reached for illegitimate reasons to protect illegitimate programs out of fear of an illegitimate person.
Time to use the ‘living document’ tactic against them.
Wichard was then, this is now. We no longer accept that what a person does on their own property effects interstate commerce absent substantial evidence of that effect.
Um, the people in the minority are the ones who believe the “Constitution is a living document” crappola.
Government regulates...it does not create one damn thing.
So I am satisfied to say I disagree and will until Hell freezes over....
“Um, the people in the minority are the ones who believe the “Constitution is a living document” crappola”
Agreed, never said otherwise. Unfortunately there are people in robes in the USSC who are completely untouchable and are making decisions based on the Living Document nonsense.
“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?”
It is our job to remove the people listed above however, when George Soros, SEUI, ACORN, AFL-CIO, can flood the advertizing market with their progressive garbage I maintain that WE THE PEOPLE lose. A business is free to run ads in papers or on TV to defend themselves but their money poured into the political coffers is disrupting the process.
History proves what we are doing is flawed. How else do you explain so many socialists, communists, marxists, revolutionaries in the current administration?
States Rights!!
Laws are mean't for the law abiding... The criminals you listed carry out their sick and twisted act regardless of the law.....
I simply demand to be in the same ring and not have one hand tied behind me......in my life-long mission to destroy them.
Without government, there is no corporation. You can have capitalism all day long without government, but if you want to incorporate you have to get the government to set up the legal framework under which a corporation exists.
A corporation is a legal entity. As all things "legal" are products of government regulation so is a corporation.
So I am satisfied to say I disagree and will until Hell freezes over....
Go right ahead, but the fact is the definition of "corporation" is this: an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
I understand that to function a corporation has to be allowed to have certain rights, such as limited property rights.
What I object to is that our government pretends as if corporations have the same rights as I do. That is patently false. My rights come from God. A corporation's rights come from Uncle Sam.
because even sales of firearms that don't cross state lines have an effect on interstate commerce. and Globull Warming causes freezing cold winters and the check is in the mail and i won't...
the tenth amendment....if it is upheld by the courts will keep America, America.
If not upheld? it may mean the time for the blood of patriots and tyrants.
my money goes to the NRA....we are people...we place political ads and fund polititicians who follow our beliefs...it is called America....and the 1st amendment fits right in.
Of course the Unions and George Soros have been funding their politics for years even after McCain Finegold.
why deny our side????
The shareholders of a corporation have property rights therein. Certain types of restrictions upon a corporation would constitute a regulatory taking of the shareholders' property rights. I see nothing wrong with saying a corporation has a "right" to do X if forbidding a corporation from doing X would infringe the property rights of its shareholders.
Thanks Still Thinking! This of course bears watching. Just wondering out loud(so to speak), why is the State of Montana not a party to this suit? I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation but it doesn’t hit me at the moment.
Thanks ForGod’sSake.
The federal government must be reigned in. The interstate commerce clause in the Constitution was NEVER intended to give the federal government virtually unlimited power.
Why do you think Soros backed McCain Feingold and the left is so POed about this decision? McCain Feingold tilted the playing field enormously to the MSM and the Unions, and those who the government was willing to look the other way on such as “non-profits” funded by Soros. McCain Feingold was an absolute affront to freedom of speech. If people cannot pool their money together to be effective with political speech, there are no real first Amendment rights. McCain Feingold effectively muzzed anti-abortion groups, the NRA, and any group who was not recognized as “media”.
Only insurance bought and sold across state lines would be interstate commerce, the rest would be by definition be intrastate commerce, not subject to federal regulation. Just like with the arms.
Well, not just like. Congress is expressly forbidden, by an amendment from "infringing" in the right to keep and bear arms. They are not so limited on other regulation of *interstate* commerce. The very nature of the amendments of the Bill of Rights was to restrict how Congress could exercise it's powers granted under the "base" constitution.
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.