[Clinging Bitterly]

Something that is coming out in recent arguments from SAF and MSSA is the point that the second amendment (and also the 10th and the 14th), being amendments that appeared after the commerce clause, necessarily affect, amend, and restrict the commerce clause. And of course that is true.

Now, Holder and Company are throwing out the line that all these states getting on this bandwagon might someday affect interstate commerce. WTF ever. Federal gun laws do that already, and those subsequent amendments trump, it seems to me.

It is a tough situation because too many unconstitutional federal laws have been allowed to stand for too long. Regardless of what happens with regard to this particular states' rights issue, we need to continue pushing back to repeal those old laws. It is their existence that gives weight to the administration's argument and nothing that is actually in the constitution.

[NTHockey]

>>Now, Holder and Company are throwing out the line that all these states getting on this bandwagon might someday affect interstate commerce.<<

This is like those bad sci-fi movies where you are guilty of a crime before you actually commit the crime. The fallacy is that if you are punished for a crimme you commit in the future, the crime never gets committed and you are punished for something that never happens. Worse, all memory of that crime is erased.