Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Lott's on a roll! | Main | Proposed OAS treaty »

Montana's exemption

Posted by David Hardy · 17 April 2009 08:42 AM

Story here. While I agree with the idea, I can't see the legislation as having much practical impact. If a Federal law is unconstitutional, it is so whatever a State may legislative. If it is constitutional, then under the Supremacy Clause it overrides whatever a State may legislate. And, unfortunately, courts have tended to find anything constitutional that relates to anything vaguely resembling interstate commerce.

8 Comments | Leave a comment

Axess Denyd | April 17, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply

I like the idea of this law, but I know it won't hold up to the Supreme Court. They have ruled everything is interstate commerce, from running a BBQ stand where everything is sourced locally (except the buns) to, amazingly, growing your own wheat for your own consumption (see Wickard v. Filburn).

Their fingers are in everything, and they aren't going to let go.

fwb | April 17, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply

OK, Here's my offer. $1000.00 cash to anyone who can find the exact phrase "interstate commerce" in the Constitution.

Of course no one can take this because there IS NO "interstate commerce" clause in the Constitution. Marshall was a twit who didn't understand basic English grammar. He twisted the word "among" to mean more than between but that was proof supreme of 1) his ignorance of the language or 2) his lying to steal authority. The reason the word "among" is used is not because the idea involves "commerce between points in different states. The word among is used because, DUH!!!, it's grammarically correct. "Between states" would have meant there were only TWO states. "Among" is the proper term for MORE THAN TWO and means EXACTLY the same thing as "between" would if only two states are involved. Using Marshall's own (stupid) logic, "between" would technically commerce exactly on the state lines.

While this "interpretation" is the accepted version, it is no more legitimate than Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (Where a stupid man freed the slaves in an area over which he had no authority but left the slaves in the states under his authority in chains). And that brings us to the point that the supreme Court, being subordinate to the Constitution, has NO authority to decide what anything in the Constitution means. They may rule on legislation using the straight forward text of the Constitution but, because ALL government is subordinate to the Constitution, no part of government carries any legitimate authority to "interpret" the Constitution.

Tiochfaidh ar la!

kbiel | April 17, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply

IANAL (and you are), but isn't the point of this legislation to make the state a party to the defense for any prosecution that might happen? In other words, without this legislation the AG would be limited to submitting amici curiae, but with the legislation the AG can actually defend a resident of Montana charged under federal law and make this a true 10th amendment issue.

bud | April 17, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply

The phrase "supremacy clause" sticks in my craw, mainly because it's been used to imply that Federal law *ALWAYS* trumps state law.

No one has the balls to even TRY to account for how the 10th affects this view.

Thane Eichenauer | April 17, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply

When the US Supreme Court is inclined to rule that most all actions taken by the federal government is permissible then any action taken to ward off federal overreach has the possibility of turning back the tide via general awareness of the constitutional issues being discussed.

AvgJoe | April 18, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) was the real tipping point for this country to start to spin around the drain. With how the federal government has run with this and in fact how this ruling became clearly shows that a powerful central controlling government is a huge mistake. Jefferson knew this but wished and should I say prayed for the best when forced to give it to allowing such a federal government to more degrees than he really wanted to go along with.
The bottom line to all evil in government always comes back to parasites having the power to tax. Some people refuse to work real work to earn a living which brings us to this stage of the game.

AvgJoe | April 19, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply

http://www.alternatehistory.com/shwi/WI%20A%20Different%20Tenth%20Ame

Food for thought

TheGunGeek | April 21, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply

I'm pretty sure that the claim of being able to prohibit guns in school zones due to Congress supposedly having authority to regulate interstate commerce was overturned, nullifying that law.

Now, all the "no guns on school property" laws are state or local laws since the federal law couldn't stick. That's how it's legal in some states to carry on campus even though there's a federal law on the books prohibiting it.

Leave a comment