On Thursday's paper there was an interesting article on the front page about a Gary Marbut of Montana. According to the article, Mr. Marbut is a gun activist that is taking aim at U.S. regulatory power. Very interesting article that to me concerns states rights and federal power. Even though he is not a lawyer, he presents interesting views on the Constitution and it's limits.
Wall Street Journal Article
- Thread starter pcb911
- Start date
I read the article on him, he is building a 22 rifle for sale only in his own state and theirby seeking to not be subject to federal interstate trade laws. I support the idea....
It seems the Fed usually wants to regulate everything everywhere, makes me wonder why we have state governments....
You may want to post a link and more information or this is likely to get closed as a drive by posting.... I am posting a link below to assist your thread.
http://www.hcn.org/hcn/articles/montanas-top-gun-rights-advocate-has-a-national-impact
It seems the Fed usually wants to regulate everything everywhere, makes me wonder why we have state governments....
You may want to post a link and more information or this is likely to get closed as a drive by posting.... I am posting a link below to assist your thread.
http://www.hcn.org/hcn/articles/montanas-top-gun-rights-advocate-has-a-national-impact
Yes, I saw the article in the paper and it is interesting. He is challenging the Federal Government’s standing to regulate interstate commerce and he is being backed by several state Attorney Generals. Much of his focus is on the 1942 Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn. I posted a link which I hope will work sometimes the WSJ requires you to log in to access stories.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576442440490097046.html?KEYWORDS=montana
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584404576442440490097046.html?KEYWORDS=montana
Last edited:
BG and BL,
Thanks for helping the Thread. The explanation of the Wickard Case was very good so that you can see what the Feds have been using to involve themselves into everything. The thought that a reversal is possible would be a nightmare for government. The power would return to the people.
Thanks for helping the Thread. The explanation of the Wickard Case was very good so that you can see what the Feds have been using to involve themselves into everything. The thought that a reversal is possible would be a nightmare for government. The power would return to the people.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
One of the issues with limiting Wickard, or the Commerce Clause in general, is that much of the 1960s Civil Rights era legislation found its authority in the Commerce Clause. The problem with restraining the Commerce Clause now is that there is so much government legislation based on it and it has been interpreted broadly for so long that I don't think anyone can see all the possible results of any significant restriction.
The info about the CRA being justified because of the "interstate traveler" and food was very interesting. Was near Atlanta during that time and the people believed the State would protect until the Feds bluffed and won.
Knew a person that was convicted for attempted wire fraud because the phone that he talked on was connected to wires that crossed state lines. Everyone that was invloved were in the same town.
Back in the 70's we encountered several Class 3 weapons that had been bought legally in the 20's and never been registered. Usually it was a Thompson in a bank, cotton mill or school board vault and had not been touched since they were bought for protection during the Depression and riots.
My Father, a UVA Law School Grad, always believed that until it crossed the state line it was a state issue not under the Feds. This could apply to guns or weed.
Knew a person that was convicted for attempted wire fraud because the phone that he talked on was connected to wires that crossed state lines. Everyone that was invloved were in the same town.
Back in the 70's we encountered several Class 3 weapons that had been bought legally in the 20's and never been registered. Usually it was a Thompson in a bank, cotton mill or school board vault and had not been touched since they were bought for protection during the Depression and riots.
My Father, a UVA Law School Grad, always believed that until it crossed the state line it was a state issue not under the Feds. This could apply to guns or weed.
While I tend to approve of restricting Fed powers in general with regard to 2nd Amendment issues, and think a multi-pronged legal strategy is the most sound approach to take down the onerous restrictions on our rights that currently exist, I have to question this particular method.
What would it truly accomplish? It might be a good deal for some Montanans who'd like to manufacture weapons but can't afford the regulatory overhead the Feds require, but is there anything in it for anyone else? If I went there, not being a Montana resident, could I buy one of their home-grown weapons or would there be another version of residency requirement which would prohibit the purchase?
Personally I like what Gura is doing in Lane et al v. Holder et al, trying to knock down the residency restriction for handgun purchases.
I do have to say I love how much is going on right now...
What would it truly accomplish? It might be a good deal for some Montanans who'd like to manufacture weapons but can't afford the regulatory overhead the Feds require, but is there anything in it for anyone else? If I went there, not being a Montana resident, could I buy one of their home-grown weapons or would there be another version of residency requirement which would prohibit the purchase?
Personally I like what Gura is doing in Lane et al v. Holder et al, trying to knock down the residency restriction for handgun purchases.
I do have to say I love how much is going on right now...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The Montana initiative is nothing more nor less than an effort to begin rolling back the Fed's (and specifically the BATFE's) monumental overreaching into what should be state-regulated (or not) matters.
By some of the most convoluted logic imaginable.
The Feds have the authority, under the Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. And, in fact, any and all laws enacted that rely on the interstate commerce clause for their justification are supposed to state right in the body of the law how it satisfies the requirement.
The Federal law outlawing the sale of marijuana claims to apply even to MJ grown, sold and consumed all within one state by the tortuous logic that, because someone grew and sold marijuana locally, the end user did NOT have to import it from out of state, and therefore interstate commerce was "affected."
Got that? I hope so, 'cause I didn't just make that up. That's the logic, and that's the logic the Feds are using to counter the Montana initiative. They're going to argue that if even one screw or spring in a Montana-made firearm is "imported," they have jurisdiction. And they'll likely claim that they have jurisdiction anyway, because of a Montana resident buys a Montana-made rifle, he WON'T buy a marlin or a Savage, and thus interstate commerce will be "affected."
Weed is a perfect example. The Federal courts have ruled that the Feds have jurisdiction over marijuana, even if it is grown, sold, and consumed all within the same state. "How do they get to claim that?" you might ask.
By some of the most convoluted logic imaginable.
The Feds have the authority, under the Constitution, to regulate interstate commerce. And, in fact, any and all laws enacted that rely on the interstate commerce clause for their justification are supposed to state right in the body of the law how it satisfies the requirement.
The Federal law outlawing the sale of marijuana claims to apply even to MJ grown, sold and consumed all within one state by the tortuous logic that, because someone grew and sold marijuana locally, the end user did NOT have to import it from out of state, and therefore interstate commerce was "affected."
Got that? I hope so, 'cause I didn't just make that up. That's the logic, and that's the logic the Feds are using to counter the Montana initiative. They're going to argue that if even one screw or spring in a Montana-made firearm is "imported," they have jurisdiction. And they'll likely claim that they have jurisdiction anyway, because of a Montana resident buys a Montana-made rifle, he WON'T buy a marlin or a Savage, and thus interstate commerce will be "affected."
AB,
I understand and agree with your statements. To give an example of hidden controls: gas pumps for your local gas station cannot be discounted more than 10% from the factory because of Fed rules. Who set the price, the factory. If that is not price fixing, what is?
So apply this to the Marbut gun: if the gun is able to be sold cheaper than a Marlin or Glenfield, then again the lower price affects the interstate trade because the buyer saves money. Our freedom of choice is still controlled.
There was a laywer that wears a fringed coat that said "Americans are more enslaved today than slaves before the War between the States."
To paraphase a song: He that controls the guns, controls.
I understand and agree with your statements. To give an example of hidden controls: gas pumps for your local gas station cannot be discounted more than 10% from the factory because of Fed rules. Who set the price, the factory. If that is not price fixing, what is?
So apply this to the Marbut gun: if the gun is able to be sold cheaper than a Marlin or Glenfield, then again the lower price affects the interstate trade because the buyer saves money. Our freedom of choice is still controlled.
There was a laywer that wears a fringed coat that said "Americans are more enslaved today than slaves before the War between the States."
To paraphase a song: He that controls the guns, controls.