MI State Rep comes up with clever way to circumvent some federal laws

S

Sefner

New member
With the federal government considering some firearms reform (this is not a thread to talk about that reform. In other words, keep the black helicoptering and gun seizure stories in another thread or in the absurd comments of the news story.) such as the AWB, national permits (H.R. 45, described in following news article), etc etc, my state rep has introduced a bill that hits back hard at gun control advocates.

Michigan State Rep. Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair Twp., is concerned about some legislation being considered in Washington.

H.R. 45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act, would require gun sales to be registered with the federal government, and a federally issued license would be required to own any handgun or semiautomatic weapon "that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device."

Pavlov has introduced H.B. 5232, the Michigan Firearms Freedom Act, which would have guns made in Michigan permanently labeled as such.
Click to expand...

Now we all know why it would matter to have "Made In *STATE*" printed on the firearm when it comes to federal laws. At least firearm owners (who more than likely know their Constitution pretty well) know: the interstate commerce clause. If a good or service (in this case a firearm) never leaves a state, because of the 10th amendment the federal government can't regulate it (or at least they have to invent another Constitutional loophole to regulate it). Hopefully other states will follow suit should it come to this. Obviously we don't want it to come to this because no one wants to be restricted to buying guns only made in their state.

I'm interested in what people think about the Constitutional aspect of this as well as the practical impact that such a law my have (would it increase or decrease the value of the labelled firearms?). But again, keep the tin foil in the kitchen and the "OBAMA TAKIN OUR GUNS" out of this thread.

LINK: http://www.thetimesherald.com/artic...s-interest-in-guns&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL
 
Last edited:
Ever here of Raich v. Gonzales?

Personally, I think it is great that more and more States are passing laws that involve the 10th amendment (and repudiate Federal Commerce Clause). Until such a time as a major majority do this, the Federal Courts will not back down on the over broad commerce powers they have allowed the Congress to amass.
 
The MI rep would do better to get rid of the CEZs and handgun REGISTRATION in MI.

I hope you all tell em so.
 
The Fed's position:

Did the materials to manufacture the firearm originate in Michigan?

Did the vehicles that transported the materials to manufacture the firearm originate in Michigan?

Did the tooling to manufacture said firearm originate in Michigan?

Did the electricity to run the tooling to manufacture the firearm originate in Michigan?

No, they didn't? Oh, so sorry, the Commerce Clause prevails and the courts, as they have in the past, will support our position.
 
It's a terribly twisted interpretation of the Commerce Clause, but that's what we have at the moment.

Precedent is not in favor of the "made in X" laws.

It would be nice to see the interpretation of the Commerce Clause set back to a more logical level (like things actually moving between states)...but I fear that is just wishful thinking, at least in the current state of things.
 
There was a case that went to the SCOTUS during WW2 (I wish I could remember the case name) where a farmer was growing produce for his family, and doing so in quantities that were in violation of the rationing laws in place at the time. His argument was that since his produce was not used in interstate commerce, the FedGov had no jurisdiction.

The SCOTUS ruled that since he was growing his own food, he was not buying food from other farmers. Since those other farmers could not then sell their wares, this affected interstate commerce.

I disagree with this ruling, as reading the COTUS in this light effectively reads the commerce clause out of the constitution, but that is the law of the land.
 
The Fed's position:

Did the materials to manufacture the firearm originate in Michigan?

Did the vehicles that transported the materials to manufacture the firearm originate in Michigan?

Did the tooling to manufacture said firearm originate in Michigan?

Did the electricity to run the tooling to manufacture the firearm originate in Michigan?

No, they didn't? Oh, so sorry, the Commerce Clause prevails and the courts, as they have in the past, will support our position.
Click to expand...

Even if the answers are yes to all those questions, the current interpretation of the commerce clause gives the feds power.

If Congress is trying to regulate an interstate market, they can regulate purely intrastate things that can affect that interstate market. If everyone could have a homegrown wheat crop, cannabis plant, or machine gun, even if those things were completely produced intrastate, the presence of those things could affect the interstate markets Congress is regulating. They all fall under the commerce clause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top