Friday, May 21, 2010

States' Rights vs. The Fed

Bloomberg Businessweek reports on the battle between states' rights and the federal government.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is joining the federal government's fight to stop states that want to exempt themselves from national gun control laws, arguing the effort threatens public safety.

The gun control advocates and the U.S. Department of Justice both filed new arguments Tuesday in the ongoing legal battle over federal gun control and states rights.

The issue was sparked with the "firearm freedoms act" first enacted in Montana last year and subsequently in several other states, and is leading to a constitutional showdown over the reach of Congress into state borders.

"That concern is no less important here, where an illegal market for firearms exists across state lines," the federal government's court brief said in asking for a quick dismissal. "In essence, Montana will create weapons that are readily accessible to those who seek to avoid a background check, with no record of transaction and no traceable markings."

It said the firearms freedom acts would stimulate the illicit interstate market in firearms.

Doesn't that make sense, the idea that gun control laws are made less effective if individual states exempt themselves? It seems pretty obvious to me.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. It's funny how the Brady Campaign supports states rights when it comes to gun control, but opposes them when it comes to pro-gun legislation.

  2. The only Constitutional argument that nationwide gun control laws have ever had is through the perversion of the commerce clause. All these states are saying is that if their product is manufactured in state, then the commerce clause does not apply. Once the gun crosses state lines, it is subject to all of the same laws as before. Nothing changes out of state.