Title 18 Chapter 44 jurisdiction analysis

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SAK

Inactive
No one's talking about this potential way to knock out federal firearms laws. Dave Champion analyzed the statutes and believes he found their trickery at play. He may very well be right - no one has challenged it yet this way. I'm sure there is someone in court facing one of these laws who could challenge it anytime.

Original: http://originalintent.org/edu/chapter44.php

Copy: https://www.gunownersdefense.org/chapter-44/


A lot of hardworking people have been hacking at the branches, but besides the 2nd Amendment elephant in the room, there is the 10th Amendment elephant as well. The federal gov't was never delegated power/authority to police (police powers) people inside states for firearms or anything else that could, in theory, cross a state line at some point. Interstate commerce means business between the actual state governments, not business among any and all who are in states.

This also raises the question - when will 2A sanctuary states impose criminal penalties against federal agents for enforcing gun laws that don't apply to people in states? Maybe that is the next step to curtail the fed's self-expansion of power and scope.
 
US Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3

" To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; "

Are you contending that the framers intended to give the US congress virtually unlimited power to regulate anything and everything that might cross a state boundary at some time? I do not think so. I think it means actual business dealings between the states - to make sure they all play well together and fair. It does not mean to regulate Citizens and their everyday dealings of anything and everything if they should happen to (or might at some point) cross a state line. That would be an unconscionable amount of power. That's carte blanche.

But I'm curious what you are thinking it means.
 
SAK said:
Are you contending that the framers intended to give the US congress virtually unlimited power to regulate anything and everything that might cross a state boundary at some time?
Click to expand...
Yes.

I do not think so.
Click to expand...
You are entitled to your opinion, but the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and it is THEIR opinion that counts. You can believe as you wish, but be careful about giving people "advice" that could lead to their violating the law and being arrested, charged, and convicted of felonies.
 
A useless paper inadequately supported with legal authority apparently written by someone without qualifications.

There’s nothing to discuss here.
 
Are you contending that the framers intended to give the US congress virtually unlimited power to regulate anything and everything that might cross a state boundary at some time? I do not think so.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this point. I don't think the Founders intended to give that unlimited power to the govt.

BUT

What the Founders intended, and what is the law today, are often quite different matters. And what we live under is the law as it exists and is interpreted, TODAY.

Go look up "Wickard" under Supreme Court rulings. You'll find that ruling DID give the Fed govt authority over EVERYTHING that moves OR COULD MOVE in interstate commerce.

That IS the current law of the land, and it will stay the law of the land until/unless some future Supreme Court overrules that decision.

The Founder's intent is no longer relevant in the matter. It should be, but its' not. and it won't be ever, again, unless a current Supreme Court rules that it is.
 
SAK said:
US Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3

" To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; "

Are you contending that the framers intended to give the US congress virtually unlimited power to regulate anything and everything that might cross a state boundary at some time? I do not think so. I think it means actual business dealings between the states - to make sure they all play well together and fair. It does not mean to regulate Citizens and their everyday dealings of anything and everything if they should happen to (or might at some point) cross a state line. That would be an unconscionable amount of power. That's carte blanche.

But I'm curious what you are thinking it means.[my emphasis]
Click to expand...

Let me attempt to clarify why I dismissed the Dave Champion article and closed this thread out of hand.

The OP asks what we think the Commerce Clause means. Well, we have many good reasons to have a fairly robust understanding of what the Commerce Clause means -- 200+ years of federal court precedent construing and applying the Commerce Clause. Many disagree with the ways in which the courts have construed and applied the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't change the reality or applicability of the substantial body of federal court precedent on the question.

The article cites to none of that enormous body of case law, and it is impossible to have a serious discussion of the scope of Congress' constitutional authority to legislate without reference to that body of case law.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
SAK said:
Are you contending that the framers intended to give the US congress virtually unlimited power to regulate anything and everything that might cross a state boundary at some time?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Click to expand...
I know this thread has been closed but, for the benefit of anyone who is seriously interested in this question, allow me to elaborate.

I think most Americans either don't know or have forgotten that our present Constitution was not our first constitution. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and became effective in 1789. The American Revolution formally ended on September 3, 1783. So did the colonies just send all the soldiers home and muck about with no constitution for six years?

Answer: No. Before the Constitution there was an earlier document, the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were created during the Revolution, drafted in 1777 and ratified by the colonies in 1781. But the Articles of Confederation didn't create much in the way of a central (federal) government. There was no executive branch (so no president), there was no judicial branch (so no federal courts or Supreme Court). There was only the Continental Congress, which was not divided into a House of Representatives and a Senate. It was a unicameral body.

The Articles of Confederation were not so much a constitution as a treaty -- a document and a system that regarded each colony pretty much as a sovereign nation, and the role of the Congress was to resolve issues that arose between and among the states. There was no common currency, for example, so trade between Massachusetts and Pennsylvania at that time was like trade today between the U.S. and Canada -- the seller's dollar wasn't worth the same as the buyer's dollar (or pound, shilling, or pence). So the Congress was charged with resolving disputes affecting trade (i.e. "commerce") between the states.

And one of the main reasons the Articles of Confederation were replaced so soon after the end of the war was that they just didn't work. And the issues of trade between and among the thirteen colonies/states was one of the most significant areas where the Articles of Confederation didn't work.

So, when the delegates drafted the new Constitution, providing for a more robust central government, they absolutely DID intend for the federal government to have the authority to regulate trade/commerce between private entities in different states. This is well documented in innumerable books and articles about the creation of the Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top