Posted on 01/25/2010 4:17:59 AM PST by marktwain
"Federal government responds to Montana Firearms Freedom Act," Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White tells us.
The United States government has filed a Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit filed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.
For those of you new to this story, here's what it's about:
Originally introduced and passed in Montana, the FFA 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 case is MONTANA SHOOTING SPORTS ASSOCIATION, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr. Defendant. To read the government's motion, click here.
The Second Amendment Foundation brings us the plaintiff reaction:
MSSA President Gary Marbut, also a Plaintiff in the lawsuit explained, "The first import of this response is that the legal game is now on. There was some concern that the defendants would forfeit the game with no response in an effort to prevent this important issue from being adjudicated properly. We are now beyond that hurdle." However, the Motion to Dismiss by Washington also seeks to sidestep proper adjudication.
SAF Chairman Alan Gottlieb said, "We are disappointed but not surprised that the government would try to kill this suit on standing, rather than arguing about the merits of the case."
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
I know numerous college students who would not understand the meaning of the word "among" in that sentence. Ask them the difference between inter- and intra-, they shrug. Don't even think about issues of federalism, central govt vs regional; the only ones who do have any familiarity with these terms are self-proclaimed socialists, progressives, etc., and they are hopeless.
It was like how the presidents BC thing was thrown out of court because a citizen of the US didn't have "standing".......how could a citizen not have "standing"?
well yeah....colleges are, generally speaking, bastions of Marxist thought.
It’s very depressing. There seem to be just two kinds of people, the ignorant and the wrong. Gun rights — and all the other rights — are not going to last long after they’re passed down another generation.
The “standing” thing has kept the Kenyan in the White House successfully, so now they use it for everything else.
Often the court will deny cases because the issue is more theoretical than actual. In this case it may take someone using this as a defense in a prosecution before the issue is ripe for the court.
The bottom line is they can do what they wish, and pass what ever law (unconstitutional) they want. Americans tend to do the right thing regardless of Washington.
You're right, but I'm afraid that they might just go back to precedence on this, using the blatant federal power grab that goes like, "if a manufacturer makes a gun and sells it in state A, then another manufacturer from state B won't be able to sell a gun to that same customer in state A; Hence even when manufacturer and seller are in the same state, the sale of the gun will effect interstate commerce, because now a manufacturer in state B can't sell that customer a gun." That's pretty much the reasoning they came up with to allow the "interstate commerce clause" to run completely wild, just with a farmer growing grain...
Mark
This “standing” is getting to be a real handy legal tool for this bunch.
It continues to be that dam Commerce Clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Feds can regulate just about anything through that interpretation.
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.