HELENA, Mont. — A group of states seeking freedom from federal gun laws were dealt a blow Wednesday when a federal magistrate recommended dismissal of a lawsuit launched by gun rights advocates who argue Congress has overstepped its bounds with gun control.
The magistrate sided with the U.S. Department of Justice, which says courts have already decided that Congress can set standards on such items as guns through its power to regulate interstate commerce. The recommendation now goes to the federal judge in Missoula hearing the case — and even gun rights advocates recognized it is likely he will side with the magistrate.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I'm sure Laci could do not much more justice to this story than I can.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll just add that this lawsuit is such a weird pipedream by the gunloons. First, trying to overturn the ICC is so ridiculous that even many far rightwingers would consider it crazy. Second, let's say the gunloons prevail on this--it wouldn't really affect anything since no state can actually fully produce firearms and ammo within the state.
"it wouldn't really affect anything since no state can actually fully produce firearms and ammo within the state."
ReplyDeleteWhat color is the sky in your world?
What FWM fails to understand is that in order for the firearm and ammo and accessories to be considered as manufactured in the state--all the materials, all the parts must come from within that state.
ReplyDeleteBasically, in FWM's world, Montana or any other state is capable of producing all the raw materials, capable of refining those raw materials into things like steel, aluminum, etc. and then capable of assembling them into guns.
Good luck with that.
Jade: “I'm sure Laci could do not much more justice to this story than I can.”
ReplyDeleteJade, usually you self-stroke your ego as you sagely point out your sophomoric wisdom to gunloons, but I haven’t seen you excerpt alpha status over the Chinese Crested yippee dog before. Why can’t a lawyer explain interstate commerce laws better than you can?
Of course Jade! There is no way the world's supply of Glocks are produced entirely in a country with a land area smaller than the state of Maine!
ReplyDeleteThere is no way the United Kingdom, smaller than Oregon, produced the Sten submachine gun in a wartime trade environment!
Your raw materials requirement is wishful thinking--those are governed by their own separate rules for interstate commerce and it would be absurd to consider them firearms simply because that is their intended finished state.
Holy cow! VD may be our Sherpa to the summit of Mount Stupidity today.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if I can simplify this to VD's level. It'll be difficult slogging.
As I'm sure many gunloons often repeat to themselves, size doesn't matter. On this issue, that's absolutely true; the ability to produce firearms isn't dependent on a state's (or nation's) size. A country like Austria or the UK can produce as many firearms as they wish so long as they have a steady supply of raw materials from which to make them.
But this ignores the fact gunloons are trying to circumvent ICC regulations and laws. To do so, a state must manufacture a firearm using only those raw materials produced in the state. As such, it's going to be enormously difficult (not to mention prohibitively expensive) for a state to manufacture a firearm using only those raw materials found and produced in state.
I am not too invested in this issue (I don’t think it is really worth pursuing), but I find it funny that Jade keeps referencing the ICC which has been defunct for 15 years.
ReplyDeleteAnd JadeGold is indeed correct when he makes the statement:
ReplyDeleteit wouldn't really affect anything since no state can actually fully produce firearms and ammo within the state.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is the case in point. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn argued however that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.
The Supreme Court disagreed.
I'll add in that even if every component could be made intrastate, the possibility that the commodity could end up in another state makes it subject to the commerce clause.
So, let's say the Marlboro man in Montana is busy making submachine guns from iron he personally mined within the state, etcetera, etcetera, such that every part was indeed made within the state. The possibility that the gun could be bought by someone who could take it to Chicago, WDC, or San Francisco places it in interstate commerce.
For good fun, US v. Rybar, where a Certain Judge Samuel Alito held that the Second Amendment did not apply to non-militia activities, did find that Congress had not sufficiently justified the law in question under the Commerce Clause. If Congress made sufficient findings regarding interstate commerce, he would have deferred to those findings.
So, go figure!
Laci
P.S., thank you TS.
An interesting aside to all this, as a believer in the Civic Right Interpetation of the Second Amendment and my
ReplyDeletehttp://lacithedog.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/if-you-saw-a-blind-three-legged-29-year-old-horse-win-the-derby/
post.
Gun rights come from STATE Constitutions and State police powers, not the Second Amendment.
Do the Heller-McDonald Cases signal that the Commerce clause will be used to institute federal gun control?
Might that explain why the "antis" aren't screaming (and why they gave such a poor show?
Just curious since the whole thing stinks to me.
Laci
Jade and Laci, thanks for the comments which fleshed out the post.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, is this a libertarian thing, this state vs. federal business? Don't the libertarians also hate the state's interference?
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how Laci's owner can say the Second Amendment isn't a right of the People, but forcing a farmer to destroy the fruits of his labor is totally constitutional.
ReplyDeletePerhaps if Filburn had a lawyer worth his salt, he would have argued Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations inherent in uncompensated seizure of property.
(Note that Laci is the actual alpha, not even Laci's owner gets to name the blog)
It is no surprise that Laci could pervert the intent of the ICC as he did with the 2nd Amendment and the silly collective rights nonsense.
ReplyDeleteOne bright point is that at least we are safe in knowing that Laci will never, ever be a judge, let alone on SCOTUS. He'll just have to settle for being an internet superlawyer.
Yeah, and "We the people" meant that the entire US population was present at the Old Pennsylvania State House.
ReplyDeleteBut nevermind.
I wouldn't expect intelligent comments from VD (Clap! Clap!) and FWA.
Laci
I wouldn't expect intelligent comments from VD (Clap! Clap!)
ReplyDeleteAh, another penis joke. Laci, your fixation on the penis never disappoints (except for the ladies).
Let's not allow the discussion to degenerate. Don't forget my wit and common sense combined with Jadegold's knowledge on the subject combined with Laci's legal expertise must be a daunting prospect for these pro gun fellers.
ReplyDeleteYes Laci, please keep on topic.
ReplyDelete"Don't forget my wit and common sense combined with Jadegold's knowledge on the subject combined with Laci's legal expertise must be a daunting prospect for these pro gun fellers"
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess we can all go home now. We got MikeB making fun of himself, Jade and yappy dog all in the same sentence.
Oh, wait, he was serious!
The Three Amigos of gun control.