ATF says NO to state sovereignty

US v Lopez did NOT invalidate gun-free school zones.
Click to expand...

Correct. Because it was not germane to the point I was making, I was not as precise as I could have been, or as I have been in previous threads.

The statute as originally passed was invalidated. The current statute, as amended, has not yet been ruled on by SCOTUS. For more discussion, see my posts in:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357687

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=354040

Congress can create its own power simply by pointing to something and saying it affects interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

I don't agree (and suspect SCOTUS doesn't either, at least in that formulation). That is the unanswered question resulting from the amendment of the statute that was the subject of the Lopez decision. I think that, given the history of that particular statute and the court's decision, the court will say no, Congress can NOT create its own power simply by pointing to something and saying it affects interstate commerce. But, in the context of other statutes, I am not so confident. Therefore, it would matter which case gets to the SCOTUS first.

Antipitas, I think that the words "could affect" convey what you say but appreciate the clarification.

the basis of the laws enacted in Montana and Tennessee. Here they declare that materials moving into the State, cease to be in commerce, if they never leave the State. The States go further, they claim that a bar of steel, changed in character, do not become "wards" of federal power, unless actually placed in interstate commerce.

That is the 10th amendment assertion.
Click to expand...

I don't think state legislatures have the power to declare what constitutes interstate commerce. That is a judicial function. The consitution does not reserve to the states the power to declare what the power of the federal government is. If the federal government does not have power, then that power is reserved to the states. The power to regulate interstate commerce, however, is in fact granted to the federal government.

However wrongly Wickard might have been decided in terms of individual production and consumption of wheat, quite clearly a substantial amount of intrastate commerce in 50 states can affect interstate commerce. So even without Wickard, and without Raich, a good argument could be made that Congress can regulate intrastate manufacture and trading of a product that is a substitute for a product that is traded in interstate commerce.

Skeezix, if Congress passes a law, the president (or the executive branch) enforces it, and the courts says it's constitutional, then in a democracy, we have to obey it. There is only one form of government in which each individual has the power to decide for himself what laws do and don't apply: anarchy.
 
This isn't about guns. It's about getting the SC to overturn Wickard v. Filburn because that ruling violates the 10th Amendment. With that ATF letter, the state Attorneys General should be able to challenge them in federal court without waiting for an "unfortunate incident" (like Ruby Ridge or Waco.)

The states will lose in the lower courts, and eventually the SC should get the case.
 
Ricky B said:
Skeezix, if Congress passes a law, the president (or the executive branch) enforces it, and the courts says it's constitutional, then in a democracy, we have to obey it. There is only one form of government in which each individual has the power to decide for himself what laws do and don't apply: anarchy.
Click to expand...

Good thing this country wasn't founded as a democracy, eh? But your statement that it must be obeyed is false. You're statement is saying that if Congress passes a law that all Chinese people must be hanged, and the President (or executive branch) enforces this, and the courts conclude this law is fine and dandy, then it must be followed. It really makes no difference what the actual law or circumstance would be, the results would be the same?

These same issues were what started the Civil war here. Not slavery, but Federal intrusion into things it had no constitutional authority to do so. The states today are saying the same thing - "Get out and leave us alone". In fact, Lincoln made a statement along these lines.

Abraham Lincoln said:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right -- a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
Click to expand...

We are not bound to obey silly unconstitutional laws. We are not bound to follow a law simply because the Federal government and courts say we should, especially when that law violates the Supreme Law of the Land of which our governments are supposed to be upholding.
 
No Feedback?

No coments about the Elastic Clause of the US Constitution? I thought that answers the question about what powers our Congress has.

One more thing, we are not a democracy, we are a federal republic.
 
These same issues were what started the Civil war here.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Are you planning on seceding and forming the Sovereign State of Skeezixstan? With no ATF and no IRS, you might get more than a few people to join you. :)
 
Ricky B said:
Indeed. Are you planning on seceding and forming the Sovereign State of Skeezixstan? With no ATF and no IRS, you might get more than a few people to join you.
Click to expand...

Possibly! Ever read anything by Robert Lukens? He has an interesting book on this idea called 'The Place To Stand' and can be downloaded free over at http://soverindi.com/home/
His writing sometimes is more like trying to imitate Ayn Rand (with long lectures) or to use events close to today and just changing names, but the philosophy and point behind it is something that made me think. I don't agree with a lot of things, whether here or elsewhere, but as long as it stretches me to think it will either present a better way, or fortify my own personal convictions.
 
Wickard is not going to be overturned. We saw in Raich that even Scalia is willing to rely on it without questioning it, and only Thomas suggested reconsidering the whole aggregation principle and substantial effects test.

On the intrastate guns issue, we don't have a direct precedent because there are significant differences between an otherwise legal gun made in Montana and something covered by Wickard, Raich, or Stewart.

Wickard was not just innocently growing his own wheat, completely removed from any federal influence until the evil Supreme Court came along. He was a participant in a FEDERAL price control program. Congress was saying to farmers, "You can grow this many acres, and we'll guarantee you this much money per bushel." Wickard grew some EXTRA acres, beyond his allotment in the program to which he had agreed, and claimed they were for his family to use, and to feed his animals. Some of those animals were then sold (in or affecting interstate commerce.)

A homegrown gun maker who is not getting federal subsidies is not directly comparable.

In Raich and Stewart, Congress has decided to completely extinguish the interstate market in cannabis and in unregistered machine guns, respectively.

A homegrown gun maker who is not making NFA weapons is not directly comparable.
 
I guess then the problem is also this - Why doesn't the money stay in the hands of citizens in the first place instead of being coerced into the hands of a Federal government who throws it around wherever they see fit?

;-)
 
Great comments Publius42. I had not heard that background about federal subsidies on the wheat case before. As we all know, once you accept money from Uncle Sam, he gets to make all the rules for you. Especially if he pays you to NOT do something and then you do it anyway.

Lesson learned: If the Feds offer subsidies to FFLs to not make certain firearms, DON'T! It's a trap! As is the Feds would ever pay an FFL a dime. :)
 
Pilgrim said:
Great comments Publius42. I had not heard that background about federal subsidies on the wheat case before.
Click to expand...

I found out about it by reading the opinion:

Wickard vs Filburn

That case is not going away, and it makes two important points:

1. The power to regulate interstate commerce extends to the regulation of those things that affect interstate commerce, even if they occur entirely within one state. (The Substantial Effects Test.)

2. The fact that one guy with a few acres of wheat really doesn't affect interstate commerce does not matter if there are lots of other people who are similarly situated, and if their combined actions, taken as a whole, could affect interstate commerce. (The Aggregation Principle.)
 
A homegrown gun maker who is not getting federal subsidies is not directly comparable.

In Raich and Stewart, Congress has decided to completely extinguish the interstate market in cannabis and in unregistered machine guns, respectively.

A homegrown gun maker who is not making NFA weapons is not directly comparable.
Click to expand...

Wickard vs Filburn

That case is not going away, and it makes two important points:

1. The power to regulate interstate commerce extends to the regulation of those things that affect interstate commerce, even if they occur entirely within one state. (The Substantial Effects Test.)

2. The fact that one guy with a few acres of wheat really doesn't affect interstate commerce does not matter if there are lots of other people who are similarly situated, and if their combined actions, taken as a whole, could affect interstate commerce. (The Aggregation Principle.)
Click to expand...
So do you agree that under Wickard that the federal govt can regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms even if the firearms are manufactured and sold entirely within one state?
 
skeezix said:
We are not bound to obey silly unconstitutional laws. We are not bound to follow a law simply because the Federal government and courts say we should, especially when that law violates the Supreme Law of the Land of which our governments are supposed to be upholding.
Click to expand...
Unless the court agrees that it's unconstitutional, you'll still be paying the penalty. So I guess that I don't understand what "not bound to obey" means when not obeying gets you a jail sentence or something similar.
 
I have not read the whole tread just yet but this struck me right off the bat

the states have aright to make their own gun laws", but the ATF says "the states don't have a right to make their own gun laws?"
Click to expand...

If that was true then the states of NY Cali NJ ect have no right to tell people they need to get a permit from the state before they buy a handgun and also it would stop Cali from saying no more then 10 rounds or no more of this gun just because
 
like I've said before jails have their own built-in dating service, can't be all bad, eh?
Click to expand...

Well, let us know how good those dating services after you've asserted your right to disobey "silly unconstitutional laws" that the courts have ruled are constitutional.
 
So do you agree that under Wickard that the federal govt can regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms even if the firearms are manufactured and sold entirely within one state?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with what has happened, but what has happened is actually worse than you have outlined.

Under Stewart, a homegrown machine gun for personal use may be regulated (prohibited) by the feds, even if it is never sold.
 
Under Stewart, a homegrown machine gun for personal use may be regulated (prohibited) by the feds, even if it is never sold.
Click to expand...

So can fruits and veggies, clothing, milk, and using a bicycle instead of paying for gas if they would so choose.

Life, fortune, and sacred honor. There is a reason they considered some things more important than these, or rather more important than the life and fortune so that the sacred honor would mean something.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top