You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should Red States Nullify the new Federal Assault Weapons law should it pass?
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
It seems to me that while they have the authority to regulate things that are involved in interstate commerce, they also don't have the authority to regulate firearms. In the case of a conflict like this, particularly since the 2nd was added through the ammendment process to secure a right, I would think the 2nd would trump the commerce clause.
Given the fact that there isn't a single amendment that grants an absolute right, it would seem that the government can regulate firearms without infringing on the 2nd amendment.
That's all well and good, but what happens when the federal government sends armed agents/troops into a state to enforce a federal law the state has nullified/declared unconstitutional?
Back the truck up a minute. A state cannot declare a law unconstitutional. There is a process by which laws can be challeneged.
However, since states don't enforce federal laws in the first place (the feds do) there isn't anything for the state not to do. If they start to interfere they are subject to criminal prosecution.
Scott Conklin
New member
I see some people still don't quite grasp the point. I'll spell it out simply one last time:
It doesn't matter how you interpret whatever legislation or case law you happen to feel best serves your desire for big, centralized government. What matters is whether enough people disagree with your interpretation and the desires of the Jack Booted Thugs who flock to such a centralized behemoth. If enough people disagree you lose and things change. The end. Quoting more case law makes no difference at all. Insulting the superior education of those who grasp this accomplishes even less.
Considering the rapid decay of our wreck of a fedgov one would have to be blind and/or desperate to not see some big changes of some fashion, for better or worse, are coming down the tracks with ever increasing speed.
It doesn't matter how you interpret whatever legislation or case law you happen to feel best serves your desire for big, centralized government. What matters is whether enough people disagree with your interpretation and the desires of the Jack Booted Thugs who flock to such a centralized behemoth. If enough people disagree you lose and things change. The end. Quoting more case law makes no difference at all. Insulting the superior education of those who grasp this accomplishes even less.
Considering the rapid decay of our wreck of a fedgov one would have to be blind and/or desperate to not see some big changes of some fashion, for better or worse, are coming down the tracks with ever increasing speed.
Scott Conklin
New member
Given the fact that there isn't a single amendment that grants an absolute right, it would seem that the government can regulate firearms without infringing on the 2nd amendment.
Amendments don't grant rights. Rights don't flow from government. Restrictions on rights are viable only so long as a sufficient number of people in a free society continue to agree to those restrictions. These are simple truths one should learn before trying to "correct" or insult the statements of others.
from wikipedia:
The use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to justify its legislative power has been the subject of long, intense political controversy. Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has helped define the balance of power between the federal government and individual states. As such, it has a direct impact on the lives of US citizens.
According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is one of those few powers specifically delegated to the federal government and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.
In 1995, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Lopez (later clarified by United States v. Morrison). There, the Court ruled that Congress had the power to regulate only
the channels of commerce,
the instrumentalities of commerce, and
action that substantially affects interstate commerce
Thus the federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in the Lopez case. This was the first time in 60 years, since the conflict with President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936-37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation.
The use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to justify its legislative power has been the subject of long, intense political controversy. Interpretation of the sixteen words of the Commerce Clause has helped define the balance of power between the federal government and individual states. As such, it has a direct impact on the lives of US citizens.
According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government of the United States has the power to regulate only matters specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. Other powers are reserved to the States, or to the people. The Commerce Clause is one of those few powers specifically delegated to the federal government and thus its interpretation is very important in determining the scope of federal legislative power.
In 1995, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court in United States v. Lopez (later clarified by United States v. Morrison). There, the Court ruled that Congress had the power to regulate only
the channels of commerce,
the instrumentalities of commerce, and
action that substantially affects interstate commerce
Thus the federal government did not have the power to regulate relatively unrelated things such as the possession of firearms near schools, as in the Lopez case. This was the first time in 60 years, since the conflict with President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936-37, that the Court had overturned a putative regulation on interstate commerce because it exceeded Congress's commerce power. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation.
The Supreme Court found in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) that, unlike the Fourteenth Amendment, the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government the power to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states.
So in that instance the "sovereignty" clause does not apply either.
So in that instance the "sovereignty" clause does not apply either.
from the Independent Institute (concerning medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich):
With inclusion of the commerce power in the Constitution, the Framers did not contemplate restrictions on cannabis or any other home-grown crop. Rather, the purpose behind the regulation of interstate commerce was creation of a free-trade zone within the United States. Alexander Hamilton predicted in Federalist No. 11 that an “unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions.” Picking up on the theme in Federalist No. 42, James Madison noted that the main purpose of the Commerce Clause “was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from improper contributions levied on them by the latter.” A union without internal trade barriers, the Framers reasoned, would permit the states to take advantage of division of labor and relieve tensions.
based on this, how can anybody reasonably argue that thet commerce clause allows the government to be the bloated, power hungry monster it is today.
With inclusion of the commerce power in the Constitution, the Framers did not contemplate restrictions on cannabis or any other home-grown crop. Rather, the purpose behind the regulation of interstate commerce was creation of a free-trade zone within the United States. Alexander Hamilton predicted in Federalist No. 11 that an “unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions.” Picking up on the theme in Federalist No. 42, James Madison noted that the main purpose of the Commerce Clause “was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from improper contributions levied on them by the latter.” A union without internal trade barriers, the Framers reasoned, would permit the states to take advantage of division of labor and relieve tensions.
based on this, how can anybody reasonably argue that thet commerce clause allows the government to be the bloated, power hungry monster it is today.
based on this, how can anybody reasonably argue that thet commerce clause allows the government to be the bloated, power hungry monster it is today.
If an item comes into the US from another country, it is indisputably within interstate commerce. Most narcotics come from outside the US. There is some homegrown pot, but the percentage is incredibly small. As a result, congress has the right to ban all narcotics that are in interstate commerce.
(that means something like 90% of narcotics)
Personally, I believe the commerce clause has been expanded way too far. If some guy gets some seeds down the street and grows some bud so he can roll his own I personally don't think this is in interstate commerce.
However the doobie brother still has state laws to contend with, some of which as just as bad.
At the end of the day here's how it all goes down. The supreme court shrinks the CC down to what it is supposed to be. Potheads rejoice. The fed tells the states, if you don't pass totally gnarly drug laws you can kiss all your federal funding goodbye. The states then pass all sorts of drug laws.
Thus the penalties and results are the same, the only difference is the feds aren't doing it. Personally I would prefer it this way since it is proper, but anyone here is kidding themselves if they think that shrinking the commerce clause would bring an end to drug prohibition. The feds would still bad most stuff, and the junk they couldn't reach would be done by the states so they would still have Uncle Sam as their sugar daddy.
Most of you guys are missing the true point here. The government gives us rights till they stand in the way of their own agenda. Perfect example: People own land but if a gov. local, state, or fed. needs the land say you have a huge gold deposit then they can and will take it. If you think this sounds crazy then check it out most people own land, some own lots but you have to still go to the gov. for mineral rights.
Most of you guys are missing the true point here. The government gives us rights till they stand in the way of their own agenda.
WRONG!! The government dervies it's powers from the people. The government isn't the giver of rights at all.
When my Great-Grandaddy was abour 20 years old, several states nullified
Federal control of those states, we all know what happened following that War and who lost and who won and who wrote the history books on that affair.
There are a lot of Federal things that presently need nullification but it is doubtful that we are at a point for that type of nullification once again. Let us hope not, however most thinking Americans do not and will not ever allow the Federal Government to make us subjects rather than citizens removing God given rights. What happens to us in the future depends upon who is the majority in the US House and Senate and what, if any steps they take to sever out rights to gun ownership, types of guns allowed and many other things as Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Freedon of Religion (Not Freedom from) and so on.
I do believe that should the trends continue to destroy rights and enslave, there is that slight possibility that according to Thomas Jefferson, is also our right. But then be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.
Federal control of those states, we all know what happened following that War and who lost and who won and who wrote the history books on that affair.
There are a lot of Federal things that presently need nullification but it is doubtful that we are at a point for that type of nullification once again. Let us hope not, however most thinking Americans do not and will not ever allow the Federal Government to make us subjects rather than citizens removing God given rights. What happens to us in the future depends upon who is the majority in the US House and Senate and what, if any steps they take to sever out rights to gun ownership, types of guns allowed and many other things as Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Freedon of Religion (Not Freedom from) and so on.
I do believe that should the trends continue to destroy rights and enslave, there is that slight possibility that according to Thomas Jefferson, is also our right. But then be careful of what you wish for, you may get it.
Last edited:
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Of course they should, but as is the case with every federal law, they have neither the will nor the constitutional authority to do so. End of story.