Montana Nullifies Gun Laws

[Predicto]

Nice grandstanding move.

Nullification is totally invalid in a legal sense due to the supremacy clause, but so what. A statement is being made.

Have fun, you crazy idealistic kids! Say hi to John C. Calhoun for me!

[armstrong001]

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.

section 6 of the law:

Section 6. Marketing of firearms. A firearm manufactured or sold in Montana

under [sections 1 through 6] must have the words "Made in Montana" clearly

stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

This will differentiate between Montana firearms and others.

It is impossible to guarantee that a person won't commit a straw purchase of a handgun and sell it to a known felon. But we don't keep everyone from buying handguns (at least not yet). If a Montana-made weapon is found outside of Montana without being processed Federally, the person in possession will be prosecuted.

[The Evil Genius]

Nice grandstanding move.

Nullification is totally invalid in a legal sense due to the supremacy clause, but so what. A statement is being made.

Have fun, you crazy idealistic kids! Say hi to John C. Calhoun for me!

Shh. Let them eat cake.

[#98QBKiller]

TMontana 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.

Now, my only question is why didn't you use "Joe Montana" as your example citizen?

[The Evil Genius]

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.

Wait..what? The Constitution is many clauses?

Damn it..how are we suppose to focus on one specific line of one specific clause now?????

[ACW]

Gonzales v. Raich with Scalia joining the majority in a 6-3 decision.

That was such a :bsflag: decision

[Hubbs]

Hip Hip Hooray:cool2:

I long for the day they ****slap the Feds over the Commerce Clause abuse.

I'll throw a damn party if that ever happens.

[Zguy28]

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.

Wait..what? The Constitution is many clauses?

Damn it..how are we suppose to focus on one specific line of one specific clause now?????

I know. I keep telling guys like Michael Newdow and Barry Lynn this, but they just want to focus on one clause all the time. :mad:

[Hubbs]

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.

The first two actually have a different Constitutional basis that probably would have worked their way through the woodwork at a similar time anyway. Hell, the ball really started rolling on desegregation with striking down the "separate but equal" nonsense. I would guess that the states would probably all vote to voluntarily continue the centralized safety efforts, although if they didn't, they'd probably have a good reason why, namely that they have an idea that they think will work better. Same holds true for economics - the whole point of having 50 different "laboratories of democracy" is that different ideas get tested and the obviously better ones generally tend to become more popular. Who's to say there isn't a better model than our current minimum wage structure/levels and 40-hour work week?

[The Evil Genius]

I know. I keep telling guys like Michael Newdow and Barry Lynn this, but they just want to focus on one clause all the time. :mad:

Ha ha..exactly. Remind them again to show you where is says seperation of church and state in the Constitution.

Too bad though that it doesn't conflict (or atleast pose a state/federal battle over it) in multiple places within the constitution - then it would be on topic.

[The Evil Genius]

By the way - the true power of the Federal government is to put strings attached on all federal funding. The states are slaves to that funding.

[Larry]

The first two actually have a different Constitutional basis that probably would have worked their way through the woodwork at a similar time anyway. Hell, the ball really started rolling on desegregation with striking down the "separate but equal" nonsense. I would guess that the states would probably all vote to voluntarily continue the centralized safety efforts, although if they didn't, they'd probably have a good reason why, namely that they have an idea that they think will work better. Same holds true for economics - the whole point of having 50 different "laboratories of democracy" is that different ideas get tested and the obviously better ones generally tend to become more popular. Who's to say there isn't a better model than our current minimum wage structure/levels and 40-hour work week?

Oh, I think I could make a logical case that there's a model of how the safety of an industry could be regulated by a single, national, entity, without a Federal Law and corresponding bureaucracy being created.

I point you at: Underwriter's Laboratories. (UL).

This (AFAIK) was an organization created, as the name suggests, by the insurance industry. (An industry which certainly has a financial interest in keeping buildings fron burning down.) Far as I know, it's a completely private, independent, organization. The only government involvement is that pretty much every local government has a law saying that you can't install any electrical device in your home or business that hasn't been approved by UL.

I think a case could be made that if, say, the FDA were declared unconstitutional, that an organization similar to UL would be quickly established (maybe by the health insurance industry?) that would certify the safety of drugs and medical equipment. Local jurisdictions could simply pass laws prohibiting the sale of drugs that aren't approved by whatever it is.

So I think a case could be made that the abolition of the FDA (to pick an example of the Feds using "interstate commerce" as an excuse to regulate something) wouldn't automatically, instantly, lead to people dropping dead from counterfeit pills.

OTOH, I could also easily imagine the local paper mill, or the power plant, paying the county commission to give them an exemption from all pollution laws, because "hey, we're the biggest employer in the county", and who cares how many people drink from that river, downstream?

We've had the debate before, and I'll assert again that IMO, the lower you get in the political hierarchy, the more subject the politicians are by the special interests.

[Larry]

Yeah Federal government needs to stay out Montan.....

Oh wait here comes the wild fires, save me FEMA!

Remembering a Bloom County comic strip.

Opus (the penguin) has decided that he wants to be a Farmer. Be close to the land, get back to his roots, all them good, wholesome, things.

Milo (main character) explains to him that, to be a farmer, there's one final test he has to pass. He has to be able to read the following two sentences, back to back, without laughing or choking:

1) The government should get off people's backs and leave them alone!

2) Where's my effing subsidy?

[twa]

By the way - the true power of the Federal government is to put strings attached on all federal funding. The states are slaves to that funding.

Yep,and more strings coming with the stimulus(as Cali is getting a quick taste of)

It may be a futile gesture,but it does bring scrutiny to bear,as well as a public expression of the people's will.

The elected representatives would be wise to pay heed.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

[ACW]

School desegregation? Libertarian case for federal involvment (the state is taking away rights)

The Voting Rights Act?Ditto

Minimum wage and the 40 hour work week? Bad ideas anyway.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

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.

:doh:

[Larry]

:doh:

Is that what passes for a response to his completely accurate point?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Is that what passes for a response to his completely accurate point?

Well, sometimes you give up.

You see, the enumerated powers are actually two: 1) regulating interstate commerce; and 2) anything necessary and proper to doing that.

It is certainly logical and conceivable that regulating intrastate commerce is necessary and proper to carrying out congress's enumerated power of regulating interstate commerce.

I gave the :doh: because it was pretty justified, and I'm just ****y these days about everyone thinking they are a constitutional law scholar by virtue of the fact that they are an american.

also, it wasn't an accurate point. It showed a lack of constitutional understanding, specifically with regards to what the necessary and proper clause is.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

There are a million misrepresentaions of both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause on this thread.

Let's just leave at this: What Montana is proposing to do can't be done.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

There are a million misrepresentaions of both the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause on this thread.

Let's just leave at this: What Montana is proposing to do can't be done.

The point is that no one clause of the constitution is read in a vacuum. Which seems to be standard practice these days.

[twa]

Which includes the Supremacy Clause

[armstrong001]

Well, sometimes you give up.

You see, the enumerated powers are actually two: 1) regulating interstate commerce; and 2) anything necessary and proper to doing that.

It is certainly logical and conceivable that regulating intrastate commerce is necessary and proper to carrying out congress's enumerated power of regulating interstate commerce.

I gave the :doh: because it was pretty justified, and I'm just ****y these days about everyone thinking they are a constitutional law scholar by virtue of the fact that they are an american.

also, it wasn't an accurate point. It showed a lack of constitutional understanding, specifically with regards to what the necessary and proper clause is.

A) I've never claimed to be a constitutional scholar. I just read the Constitution.

The "neccesary and proper" clause only gives congress the right to make laws "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers", not to expand beyond those powers. The commerce clause says nothing about regulating commerce that takes place solely within one state.

Please explain to me since I am so inadequate in my Constitutional "scholarship": If the Constitution allows Federal regulation of both interstate, and intrastate commerce as you claim, then why have the wording "among the several states" included? Why not just say that Congress has the right to regulate all commerce, and be done with it?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

A) I've never claimed to be a constitutional scholar. I just read the constitution.

The "neccesary and proper" clause only gives congress the right to make laws "for carrying into execution the foregoing powers", not to expand beyond those powers. The commerce clause says nothing about regulating commerce that takes place solely within one state.

Please explain to me since I am so inadequate in my Constitutional "scholarship": If the Constitution makes no distinction between interstate, and intrastate commerce as you claim, then why have the wording "among the several states" included? Why not just say that Congress has the right to regulate all commerce, and be done with it?

Maybe they did exactly what you say they didn't when they put those other clauses in there.

Maybe what you are saying is not the same as saying that Congress can regulate all commerce.

Maybe its gone too far.

Maybe its not.

Quoting one part of one sentence from the Constitution does not help solve the problem.

[armstrong001]

So, you are at least admitting that maybe the Federal government has overstepped its bounds? And my comments deserve a :doh:?

People quote the "commerce clause" all the time and justify a postition based on one part of the Constitution. People have used these small sections of the Constitution to justify just about anything they want to. What's wrong with me using the same clause and pointing out that it doesn't mention anything about what they say it does? How am I wrong to use one section of the Constitution where others are not?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So, you are at least admitting that maybe the Federal government has overstepped its bounds? And my comments deserve a :doh:?

People quote the "commerce clause" all the time and justify a postition based on one part of the Constitution. People have used these small sections of the Constitution to justify just about anything they want to. What's wrong with me using the same clause and pointing out that it doesn't mention anything about what they say it does? How am I wrong to use one section of the Constitution where others are not?

What's wrong with it? Everything that's wrong with others doing that which you think deserves a :doh:

I am admitting that the commerce clause may be most overused and abused part of the constitution. However, I'm :doh: ing the way in which everyone seems to think they can quote five words of the Constitution and claim they have an argument.

I'm not just trying to pick on you. These constitutional law threads are always ridiculous based on all different posters, from all perspectives.

Its never as simple as people make it out to be. And that deserves a :doh: everytime.