Montana Nullifies Gun Laws

[Hubbs]

Thiebear - yup.

You know how we needed a Constitutional amendment for alcohol prohibition? Ever wondered why we've never needed one for drug prohibition? Because the feds decided to argue that if I grow marijuana in my house for my own use, I'm potentially affecting the price of marijuana in other states, even though the feds try to arrest anyone who makes a transaction involving that price.

Annnnnd now my head hurts.

[armstrong001]

Not knowing crap about the above goobledeegook.

A farmer can't grow something on his land because if he didn't he'd have to buy it (supposition that he would then eat whatever he was growing?)

From someone else which then 'could' make it interstate?

We don't even allow that much stretching in the tailgate threads here as seen on this page. Though i would agree that Fed takes precedence over state in laws, there are some that should be challenged. (Made in Montana might not be my first choice). The farm one i would push.

*Note* This seems to be State and Federal fighting it out on who is correct... Seems to me everything is working as intended.

That farm case came out of the Depression, where the federal government was trying to limit crop production to keep prices high. They told this farmer he could grow x amount of wheat. He grew more than that, and kept the extra for his personal use.

I don't think anyone can "push" that particular ruling, because I don't believe that law is still in existance. I'm fairly sure that the government doesn't force farmers to limit their crops anymore. They'll pay a farmer to let land sit unused, but not force them to leave it bare. The only way to challenge that kind of case is to find an example where the Federal government is regulating commerce that doesn't take place "among the states".

My guess is that the courts will rule against Montana, since the medicinal marijuana case Larry mentioned was ruled on only a few years ago. It seems like the courts haven't really changed their minds very much. And if Obama sits a new justice, I'm willing to bet that they won't be very enthusiastic about affirming State's rights. Still, you don't get anywhere by not trying. I'm glad Montana is trying to regain some of its lost power.

[armstrong001]

I understand the holding of the case, but the holding is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion. The feds aren't trying to force local law enforcement officers to do the work of the federal government. The state is trying to tell the feds that federal law enforcement officers can't enforce federal law within Montana.

No, the state is trying to tell the feds that they can't enforce an unconstitutional federal law affecting intrastate commerce within Montana. They haven't said that the Federal government cannot regulate firearms being bought, sold, and transported across state lines. Just the ones that never leave the state.

[Larry]

I think that part of the problem in this thread is that people are discussing two issues. (At least two. I think SS is off in his own universe. )

Do the Feds have the authority to regulate commerce which takes place entirely within one state?

IMO, no, they don't. Although I'll also admit that I see some potential problems if the existing unconstitutional system is struck down.

Does a state have the authority to declare itself to be exempt from federal laws?

No, they don't.

I think that a lot of people are trying to argue that the state has the authority to do something it doesn't have the authority to do, because the feds are doing something that they don't have the authority to do.

[armstrong001]

I think that part of the problem in this thread is that people are discussing two issues. (At least two. I think SS is off in his own universe. )

Do the Feds have the authority to regulate commerce which takes place entirely within one state?

IMO, no, they don't. Although I'll also admit that I see some potential problems if the existing unconstitutional system is struck down.

Does a state have the authority to declare itself to be exempt from federal laws?

No, they don't.

I think that a lot of people are trying to argue that the state has the authority to do something it doesn't have the authority to do, because the feds are doing something that they don't have the authority to do.

Larry, I don't think anyone is saying that a State can declare itself exempt from ALL federal laws. Just the ones that don't fall under their jurisdiction, such as intrastate commerce. Montana is only saying that those certain federal laws involving firearms do not apply, not that none of them apply.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

A farmer can't grow something on his land because if he didn't he'd have to buy it (supposition that he would then eat whatever he was growing?)

From someone else which then 'could' make it interstate?

That's the current rule, though the Court has slowly been chipping away at power under the Commerce Clause for a decade now.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Larry, I don't think anyone is saying that a State can declare itself exempt from ALL federal laws. Just the ones that don't fall under their jurisdiction, such as intrastate commerce. Montana is only saying that those certain federal laws involving firearms do not apply, not that none of them apply.

They are wrong.

SnyderShrugged has completely muddled this thread by confusing "compliance" with "enforcement." The federal government cannot force local law enforcement officers to enforce federal laws. However, the federal laws still apply.

So, if there is a federal law about breeding pit bulls and the local sheriff refuses to enforce it, the FBI cannot order him to enforce it.

However, the FBI can still arrest you for breeding pit bulls. And you will still go to jail.

Federal law is always supreme (assuming it is constitutional of course).

[Larry]

That's the current rule' date=' though the Court has slowly been chipping away at power under the Commerce Clause for a decade now.[/quote']

I'd direct folks to my post #8 in this thread (where I have just tried to clean up the convoluted syntax some) for evidence that no, the Supreme Court does not show any signs of weakening the extension of the interstate commerce clause any time soon.

[armstrong001]

They are wrong.

SnyderShrugged has completely muddled this thread by confusing "compliance" with "enforcement." The federal government cannot force local law enforcement officers to enforce federal laws. However' date=' the federal laws still apply.

So, if there is a federal law about breeding pit bulls and the local sheriff refuses to enforce it, the FBI cannot order him to enforce it.

However, the FBI can still arrest you for breeding pit bulls. And you will still go to jail.

Federal law is always supreme [b'](assuming it is constitutional of course)[/b].

This is what the crux of the matter is. Can the State say "no thanks" to an unconstitutional federal law, or at least a federal law applied unconstitutionally? I believe it can. But we'll see what the courts decide.

[SnyderShrugged]

It says absolutely nothing of the sort. It says that the federal government cannot order local governments to do something on the Fed's behalf.

Absolutely true, and undisputed in this thread.

Utter BS. Not only untrue, but completely opposite of the truth.

NOT utter BS...The supremecy clause is only valid when the Feds are working within the confines of the enumerated powers, after that the 10th ammendment kicks in.

just curious, why have a 9th and 10th ammendment if not to limit Federal jurisdiction and overreach? Isnt that the entire intent of the ammendments? If not, why would they be in the BOR to begin with?

[SnyderShrugged]

I think that part of the problem in this thread is that people are discussing two issues. (At least two. I think SS is off in his own universe. )

Do the Feds have the authority to regulate commerce which takes place entirely within one state?

IMO, no, they don't. Although I'll also admit that I see some potential problems if the existing unconstitutional system is struck down.

Does a state have the authority to declare itself to be exempt from federal laws?

No, they don't.

I think that a lot of people are trying to argue that the state has the authority to do something it doesn't have the authority to do, because the feds are doing something that they don't have the authority to do.

No one is trying to argue that whatsoever, the only debate is whether the stae is mandated to follow an unconstitutional Federal overreach in scope.

and yes, i often inhabit my own universe. (It's safer in here!)

[SnyderShrugged]

They are wrong.

SnyderShrugged has completely muddled this thread by confusing "compliance" with "enforcement." The federal government cannot force local law enforcement officers to enforce federal laws. However' date=' the federal laws still apply.

So, if there is a federal law about breeding pit bulls and the local sheriff refuses to enforce it, the FBI cannot order him to enforce it.

However, the FBI can still arrest you for breeding pit bulls. And you will still go to jail.

Federal law is always supreme (assuming it is constitutional of course).[/quote']

The Feds can arrest you if the county sherriff agrees with them that a law was broken, if not, it's his say and not the feds.

BTW, It's my thread to muddle! LOL

[SnyderShrugged]

This is what the crux of the matter is. Can the State say "no thanks" to an unconstitutional federal law, or at least a federal law applied unconstitutionally? I believe it can. But we'll see what the courts decide.

That is precisely correct.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This is what the crux of the matter is. Can the State say "no thanks" to an unconstitutional federal law, or at least a federal law applied unconstitutionally? I believe it can. But we'll see what the courts decide.

If that is the crux of the matter, then the answer is no because the Supreme Court of the United States is the final decision maker on such matters, not the states.

So, the state can take the case to the SC, but doesn't get to decide what is and is not unconsitutional.

This thread continues to be silly though.

[Predicto]

Last I knew, being "mainstream" has zero bearing on constitutional scholarship and deep understanding.

Don't let your hate for Fox news get in the way of reality. Do you have examples to offer of when he has been wrong, in a legal sense?

Not saying he never was, only that in my experience, I havnt seen him go astray yet.

Sure. Here's a good example. I chose it because it was by Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, and you know that I am not a right winger in the least and am not inclined to agree with the National Review on anything.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200502230740.asp

[Predicto]

The Feds can arrest you if the county sherriff agrees with them that a law was broken, if not, it's his say and not the feds.

That is not true.

Ask the medical marijuana guys who got arrested by DEA officers in San Francisco how well that argument worked for them.

Federal law is always supreme over contrary state law.

[The Evil Genius]

When determining who has the right to regulate interstate vs intrastate commerce - I think its important to remember who exactly determines the state boundaries to begin with.

I mean, that is the key in determining if intrastate commerce becomes interstate, right?

[The Evil Genius]

That is not true.

Ask the medical marijuana guys who got arrested by DEA officers in San Francisco how well that argument worked for them.

Federal law is always supreme over contrary state law.

Exactly. However, State law can be more punitive than Federal law (and the Feds are ok with that).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

When determining who has the right to regulate interstate vs intrastate commerce - I think its important to remember who exactly determines the state boundaries to begin with.

I mean, that is the key in determining if intrastate commerce becomes interstate, right?

No. That is not the key at all.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Feds can arrest you if the county sherriff agrees with them that a law was broken, if not, it's his say and not the feds.

My cousin the bookie respectfully disagrees. He was paying good money to the local sheriff and still got arrested on bookmaking charges.

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

The Feds can arrest you if the county sherriff agrees with them that a law was broken, if not, it's his say and not the feds.

BTW, It's my thread to muddle! LOL

I want to go back to this because this is insanely stupid.

Let's go to 1985. If Rudy Guiliani wanted to prosecute the Mafia Commission under RICO...he needed permission from the Chief of Police of New York City?

Do you really believe that?

More importantly, are you telling anyone impressionable that this is the current state of the law?

Because someone is going to go to jail if they listen to you.

[Larry]

The Feds can arrest you if the county sherriff agrees with them that a law was broken, if not, it's his say and not the feds.

You are full of :pooh:. And you've had your nose rubbed in the part of the Constitution that says so.

[Larry]

This is what the crux of the matter is. Can the State say "no thanks" to an unconstitutional federal law, or at least a federal law applied unconstitutionally? I believe it can. But we'll see what the courts decide.

No, it cannot.

The person who's being prosecuted has the right to claim that a law is unconstitutional. If he makes that claim, then the courts will rule on whether it's constitutional or not.

And they will make that decision completely without regard to any state law whatsoever. Because state law is completely irrelevant when a federal court is determining if a federal law violates the federal constitution.

A law is either constitutional, or it isn't. It isn't "constitutional, unless the state legislature thinks otherwise".

[Larry]

NOT utter BS...The supremecy clause is only valid when the Feds are working within the confines of the enumerated powers, after that the 10th ammendment kicks in.

Which is a reason why a law is unconstitutional.

It says nothing about "well, if the county sheriff agrees"

A law is either Constitutional (in which case, neither the state legislature nor the county sheriff nor the mods on ES have any say in the matter whatsoever) or it isn't (in which case, neither the state legislature nor the county sheriff nor the mods on ES have any say in the matter whatsoever).

When the federal government passes a Constitutional law, then that law is the supreme law of the land.

When they pass an unconstitutional law, then the law doesn't exist. And it doesn't exist nationwide. Not just in one state.

In neither case does the county sheriff get consulted.

[Larry]

If that is the crux of the matter, then the answer is no because the Supreme Court of the United States is the final decision maker on such matters, not the states.

So, the state can take the case to the SC, but doesn't get to decide what is and is not unconsitutional.

This thread continues to be silly though.

Now that I agree with. If Bubba's Gun Barn actually believes this nullification BS, and he acts on it, and the Feds show up and seize Bubba's business, Bubba's books, Bubba's bank account, and Bubba's butt, (yes, it did take me a while to make all of those fit), then the state has the perfectly legal right to send the State Attorney to go to the Supreme Court and express to the court, the State's opinions on why the State of Montana feels that the feds lacked jurisdiction in this case.

There's no rule at all that says the State Attorney can't appear, in effect, as an attorney for the defense, in the case of a law that the State thinks shouldn't be there.