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 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Al Gore effect on a continental scale | Main | Hunting for a whistleblower »

Utah passes exemption from Federal firearm laws

Posted by David Hardy · 11 February 2010 10:03 AM

Story here. The bills of this type that I have seen provide that a gun made within the State and transferred to a State resident are exempt from Federal control.

The big difficulty, as I see it, is the Raich decision on medicinal marihuana, holding that growing and using marihuana in-State (and I think persons were forbidden to sell it) came within the Congressional power over interstate commerce. Absent a way around that, State enactments would be trumped by the Supremacy Clause. I haven't had time to carefully read Raich, so I don't know if there is a way around it. On the other hand, there may be considerations here which extend beyond legal doctrine -- the fact that the people of certain States are beginning to act on their beliefs regarding a proper view of federalism.

Hat tip to reader Bret Gallo....

· State legislation

8 Comments | Leave a comment

jheath | February 11, 2010 11:24 AM | Reply

Well they could pass a militia law, designate everybody as militia, and authorize them to arm themselves without regard to federal law. According to J. Stevens in _Heller_ the state has the power to do pass militia laws free from federal interference. _Heller_ did not affect militia law, so if what J. Stevens claimed for militia law was ever true, it remains true. Let Utah enact the same exemption under its concurrent militia powers and see who wins. It is waaaaaayyyy past time to directly test the collective theory. "The best way to keep the enemy out of your country, is to carry the war into his."

JJorgensen | February 11, 2010 12:07 PM | Reply

How does this law differ from laws on switchblade knives. For example it is legal to manufacture and sell switchblades in California as long as the blade length is under 2". Take it to another state and you have committed a federal crime. I don't see the difference with respect to firearms. Am I missing something here?

Brian | February 11, 2010 12:22 PM | Reply

"My understanding of Raich is that the court says that marijuana is fungible. Since the feds can't tell the difference between home grown pot and pot that was involved in interstate commerce, then they can regulate it all.

I don't understand how they can claim that serialized guns involved in interstate commerce can't be distinguished from home-grown guns (which could also be serialized and documented).

I'm not a lawyer though, just a layperson with a very good understanding of the English language, so the "interpretations" that lawyers can conjure out of fairly plain language to come to the opposite conclusion from a plain reading often baffles me."

Patrick | February 11, 2010 2:17 PM | Reply

I'd thought that the catch in Raich was that marijuana grown in-state was indistinguishable from marijuana grown out-of-state, which is why all of these bills require that the guns be stamped, "Made in
".

Patrick | February 11, 2010 2:18 PM | Reply

That should read, "Made in <state>."

John G. | February 11, 2010 5:33 PM | Reply

Actually, isn't it fairly standard for all males to be considered "unincorporated militia"? I thought I saw that somewhere...such as most state constitutions?

straightarrow | February 11, 2010 11:09 PM | Reply

There may not be a way around it. But there is a way. Right over it. Just run over the sonsofbitches. When they come to violate state law, arrest them. If they resist, shoot them. Just like the state would do with any other criminal.

fwb | February 12, 2010 11:45 AM | Reply

Congress' commerce power does not include power to control things. If it did then the entire 18th amendment and subsequent 21st amendment processes were BS and a waste of time. The Constitution hasn't changed. It's that a bunch of usurpers came into the courts and have tried to steal power from the People.

It will result in their ouster at some point.

The courts lie. The judges have no honor or integrity. Everything the SC has decided in decades is built on quicksand or is a house of
cards.

The Supremacy clause REQUIRES that Congress have the power delegated to them. The Courts DO NOT have the authority to say so. The Courts are subordinate to the Constitution just like an employee is subordinate to an employer. Next time you go into work you just tell your boss what his job.

Tiocfaidh ar la!

Leave a comment