SnyderShrugged Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 This is a very interesting move Anyone who has had the privilege to listen to a lecture from Tom Woods or read Judge Andrew Napolitano knows this is big news. Nullification is one the best weapons in our constitutional arsenal to check the power of the federal government back to its proper levels; although nullification is relatively unknown. Nullification declares a federal law the state feels is unconstitutional invalid within the state passing the nullification law. It goes beyond the language of state sovereignty acts and takes action. There is speculation that the Supreme Court would take up the eminent case between the federal government and Montana should an emerging consensus arise with several states adopting similar laws, and overturn the expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause, and in doing so severely tie the hands of congress and the executive branch. :applause: The federal government currently uses an expanded and unconstitutional interpretation of the interstate commerce clause to interfere in affairs constitutionally left to the states ranging from guns to what a farmer can grow on his farm for personal consumption. Those looking for more information on nullification should check out the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 penned by Jefferson and Madison respectively or check out this Tom Woods video. Montana's nullification action is with regard to gun laws. Montana has declared that federal gun laws are invalid in the state of Montana on guns made in the state of Montana, used exclusively in the state of Montana, and never transported across state lines. This particular law applies to ammunition and gun accessories as well. This is now a law in Montana. It has been passed and signed by the governor. Similar laws are being formed in Utah, Tennessee, and Texas. Imagine the impact Campaign for Liberty could have in getting similar legislation passed with local efforts within our states. The law, included below, says in simple terms the following. Section 1: Gives a name to the bill Section 2: States why the state of Montana can nullify a federal law, including references to the 2nd, 9th, & 10th amendments to the US Constitution Section 3: Sets up definitions for terms used in the bill Section 4: Nullifies federal gun laws relating to arms built, used, and kept within the state of Montana Section 5: Sets exceptions to what is nullified Section 6: Brands Montana firearms Section 7: Lists where the law goes in the Montana Code Section 8: Sets application date to October 1, 2009 (Click link for text of actual law) http://www.campaignforliberty.com/#17935 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hip Hip Hooray:cool2: I long for the day they ****slap the Feds over the Commerce Clause abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hip Hip Hooray:cool2:I long for the day they ****slap the Feds over the Commerce Clause abuse. Thats the most exciting part. I heard Judge Napolitano comment on this the other day and he feels that this would even make it through the Supreme court and if it does, we could see it impacting many Federal laws implemented since FDR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hmm, can Iowa's Governor nullify an action done a few months ago that the voters didn't approve of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Amen. The commerce clause has got to be one of the most abused sections of the constitution. Check out Wickard v. Filburn for some real heartburn. The court ruled that the government has the right to regulate price. A farmer grew wheat on his own land for his personal use when the government told him not to. The court decided that if he hadn't had his own personal wheat, he would have bought it elsewhere on the open market. Therefore he was effecting interstate commerce, and could be regulated by the government. ETA: SS, I must have skimmed over the paragraph in your post mentioning this case. I hope Colorado does something along these lines (Or the Supreme Court does take this up and rule favorably). There are some good firearms manufacturers here in CO that I would love to buy from without federal interferrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Hmm, can Iowa's Governor nullify an action done a few months ago that the voters didn't approve of? Nope, only the Legislature and voters can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Thats the most exciting part. I heard Judge Napolitano comment on this the other day and he feels that this would even make it through the Supreme court and if it does, we could see it impacting many Federal laws implemented since FDR. School desegregation? The Voting Rights Act? Food and drug purity standards? Pollution controls? OSHA? Minimum wage and the 40 hour work week? There's a lot to be said for Libertarianism. (Including the fact that that's what our Founders intended.) Just pointing out that the evil federal government also passes a lot of unconstitutional laws that actually do make our country a better place than if we didn't have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Amen. The commerce clause has got to be one of the most abused sections of the constitution. Check out Wickard v. Filburn for some real heartburn.The court ruled that the government has the right to regulate price. A farmer grew wheat on his own land for his personal use when the government told him not to. The court decided that if he hadn't had his own personal wheat, he would have bought it elsewhere on the open market. Therefore he was effecting interstate commerce, and could be regulated by the government. ETA: SS, I must have skimmed over the paragraph in your post mentioning this case. I hope Colorado does something along these lines (Or the Supreme Court does take this up and rule favorably). There are some good firearms manufacturers here in CO that I would love to buy from without federal interferrence. Good example, but I think an even better one was the court ruling that the feds have the authority to prohibit marijuana (grown in California, for the purpose of being given away in California), under the interstate commerce clause, because the fact that medical marijuana exists in California affects the price of illegal marijuana in New York. They literally ruled that the "interstate commerce" clause applied to something which was neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The myth that state governments are better equipped to handle problems than the federal government persists. YAY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The myth that state governments are better equipped to handle problems than the federal government persists. YAY. Damn those 9th and 10th amendments. What next? People thinking they can actually do for themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Damn those 9th and 10th amendments.What next? People thinking they can actually do for themselves? You can't talk like that to a lawyer...you heathen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 You can't talk like that to a lawyer...you heathen :hysterical::hysterical::doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The myth that state governments are better equipped to handle problems than the federal government persists. YAY. Hamilton? Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 12, 2009 Author Share Posted May 12, 2009 The myth that state governments are better equipped to handle problems than the federal government persists. YAY. I don't believe the subject of which goverment can do better is the topic here. We are discussing what boundaries are prescribed in the constitution and obviousy some states are exercising those boundaries as they are allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 While i dont want to get too deep into the constitutionality side of it, i think that gun rights are one of those things that may actually be better off regulated on a more local level. Different gun rules impact citizens lives differently in different parts of the country Of course then you would have intrastate issues where the rural portion of a state has their gun rights clamped down by the urban areas that have more votes/pull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 The myth that state governments are better equipped to handle problems than the federal government persists. YAY.Based on the myth that powers not enumerated in the Constitution went to the state or the people err....wait, that isn't a myth? The Constitution actually says that? And the govt has been leaping further over that line since FDR? Prior to FDR, the govt was only creeping over the line. And this is not a Rep or Dem issue, but a political issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Yeah Federal government needs to stay out Montan..... Oh wait here comes the wild fires, save me FEMA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Nullifcation as an illegal concept was pretty much decided under Andrew Jackson. So...I don't see where this going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 While i dont want to get too deep into the constitutionality side of it, i think that gun rights are one of those things that may actually be better off regulated on a more local level. Different gun rules impact citizens lives differently in different parts of the countryOf course then you would have intrastate issues where the rural portion of a state has their gun rights clamped down by the urban areas that have more votes/pull. You have a point there and in a state like PA, where most of the population is located in a very small corner, while the rest of it is very rural. Now, in a state like Utah or Montana, the city pop isn't that much greater than the country side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Nullifcation as an illegal concept was pretty much decided under Andrew Jackson.So...I don't see where this going. You referring to the Force Act which dealt with revenue and taxes? Nothing was decided under Jackson..a compromise was reached instead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Based on the myth that powers not enumerated in the Constitution went to the state or the people err....wait, that isn't a myth? The Constitution actually says that? And the govt has been leaping further over that line since FDR? Prior to FDR, the govt was only creeping over the line. And this is not a Rep or Dem issue, but a political issue. That's what ONE clause says. It also says that the government can do anything "necessary and proper" to performing any enumerated powers. See, the Constitution is many clauses, all put together, in sentences and paragraphs. Its not just one word out of a thousand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's what ONE clause says.It also says that the government can do anything "necessary and proper" to performing any enumerated powers. See, the Constitution is many clauses, all put together, in sentences and paragraphs. Its not just one word out of a thousand. And how exactly is regulating commerce that exists exclusively inside a state an enumerated power? The Federal government can surely do anything "necessary and proper" when performing what they are chartered to do. This ain't one of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armstrong001 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Good example, but I think an even better one was the court ruling that the feds have the authority to prohibit marijuana grown in California, for the purpose of being given away in California, is interstate commerce because the fact that medical marijuana exists in California affects the price of illegal marijuana in New York. They literally ruled that the "interstate commerce" clause applied to something which was neither. That's an interesting one. What case was that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhd24 Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's an interesting one. What case was that? Gonzales v. Raich with Scalia joining the majority in a 6-3 decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Montana's nullification action is with regard to gun laws. Montana has declared that federal gun laws are invalid in the state of Montana on guns made in the state of Montana, used exclusively in the state of Montana, and never transported across state lines. This particular law applies to ammunition and gun accessories as well. This is now a law in Montana.The biggest problem I see is how do you guarantee that these guns and ammunition aren't taken across state lines?Let's assume SCOTUS hears this and rules in Montana's favor. Montana Gunmaker's Inc. produces a rifle. John Montana-Citizen buys said rifle and takes it across state lines to Idaho. The gun was not manufactured or sold in accordance with federal law so it is now an illegal firearm. I'm not trying to be difficult or anything I just see a monumental flaw in the way this law is written because it is impossible to guarantee that guns made in Motana by Montana gun-makers do not cross state lines, and once they cross state lines the federal government has the right to regulate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.