Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

HELENA - A growing list of states joining the legal battle over federal gun control argued Monday that Congress can't regulate guns made and sold within a state.

The argument over gun control, sparked with the "firearm freedoms act" first enacted in Montana and subsequently in other states, is leading to a constitutional showdown over the reach of Congress into state borders.

A total of seven states filed "friend of the court" briefs by Monday's deadline to do so. And the Montana attorney general also is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit first filed by gun advocates in U.S. District Court in Missoula.

"The American people and the several states created the federal government, and they now want the federal government constrained to the proper role for which it was created," said Missoula resident Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association that launched the lawsuit. "This is a forward step for freedom that has always been at the heart of who we are in America."

http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/ar ... 002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

grizzaholic wrote:HELENA - A growing list of states joining the legal battle over federal gun control argued Monday that Congress can't regulate guns made and sold within a state.

The argument over gun control, sparked with the "firearm freedoms act" first enacted in Montana and subsequently in other states, is leading to a constitutional showdown over the reach of Congress into state borders.

A total of seven states filed "friend of the court" briefs by Monday's deadline to do so. And the Montana attorney general also is seeking to intervene in a lawsuit first filed by gun advocates in U.S. District Court in Missoula.

"The American people and the several states created the federal government, and they now want the federal government constrained to the proper role for which it was created," said Missoula resident Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association that launched the lawsuit. "This is a forward step for freedom that has always been at the heart of who we are in America."

http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/ar ... 002e0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd like to see Virginia join these other states in the battle over federal powers creeping into places they never were intended by our founders...

A growing list of states joining the legal battle over federal gun control argued Monday that Congress can't regulate guns made and sold within a state.

I'm no legal scholar... but, it would seem to me they don't have much of a case. They could challenge individual regulations as unconstitutional but I believe the Constitution is pretty explicit on Congress' role in regulating trade:

The Congress shall have Power... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

And the fact that federal law trumps state law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I'd be interested to hear danefan's take, though.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

A growing list of states joining the legal battle over federal gun control argued Monday that Congress can't regulate guns made and sold within a state.

I'm no legal scholar... but, it would seem to me they don't have much of a case. They could challenge individual regulations as unconstitutional but I believe the Constitution is pretty explicit on Congress' role in regulating trade:

The Congress shall have Power... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

And the fact that federal law trumps state law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I'd be interested to hear danefan's take, though.

There Commerce Clause counter-argument is that these are guns made and sold in-state. They're arguing there is zero effect on interstate commerce and therefore Congress has no authority.

There are definitely a few arguments against that. For exemple, this will essentially kill any sales by out-of-state gun manufacturers and therefore the laws have a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce.

Dean Milk Co. vs. City of Madison has some interesting language that may be relevant here.....

I'm not sure about the preemption doctrine. Its an interesting thought though. I'll have to think about it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

A growing list of states joining the legal battle over federal gun control argued Monday that Congress can't regulate guns made and sold within a state.

I'm no legal scholar... but, it would seem to me they don't have much of a case. They could challenge individual regulations as unconstitutional but I believe the Constitution is pretty explicit on Congress' role in regulating trade:

The Congress shall have Power... to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

And the fact that federal law trumps state law:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I'd be interested to hear danefan's take, though.

I'm no legal scholar myself, but there is a difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (between the states) not intrastate commerce (inside the same state). That is what should be left up to the state itself, and out of the scope of the feds.

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
I'm no legal scholar... but, it would seem to me they don't have much of a case. They could challenge individual regulations as unconstitutional but I believe the Constitution is pretty explicit on Congress' role in regulating trade:



And the fact that federal law trumps state law:



I'd be interested to hear danefan's take, though.

I'm no legal scholar myself, but there is a difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (between the states) not intrastate commerce (inside the same state). That is what should be left up to the state itself, and out of the scope of the feds.

Yes, but local laws, while intrastate in scope, cannot have a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce. That's probably the argument here.