Gun laws: Is this consitutional?

The Painter said:
BTW why hasn't anyone mentioned Montana? They passed this law a year ago. No federal challenge yet. Maybe the feds know this is bigger than guns.
Click to expand...

Or there isn't any cause of action. Are there any guns that are manufactured entirely in Montana or Arizona? If there aren't, then that part of this law will sit on the books until doomsday and never be challenged. Courts don't accept hypotheticals, even in blatantly unconstitutional cases.

If the state legislature passes a law that says citizens of our state who are over the age of 125 years are exempt from federal income taxes, that blatantly unconstitutional law will sit on the books right up until the time some 126 year old refuses to pay his taxes.
 
The Painter said:
Her you go;
Montana Firearm Manufacturers

It took me about a minute to find it. It doesn't appear to be hypothetical, does it? Try to answer your question before you post. I won't do your home work anymore.
Click to expand...

Good. You don't do your own homework, so I wouldn't expect you to do mine.

Are those guns manufactured completely in Montana (whatever that means), and are they subject to federal registration requirements or federal restrictions on sales? (Are there any federal registration requirements for rifles? I don't think so, but if there are, I'm confident I am in violation of them, since none of my weapons are known to the feds.)

If so, then sooner or later the feds will bust someone for violating the law, and the case will go to court, and someone will insist that the Montana law supercedes federal regulations, and the judge will tell them that they are wrong, and will throw out the Montana law. It's that easy. It's an open and shut case and there is absolutely no doubt about what will happen, and every legislator that voted for the law knows it, but they figured it was a good way to throw some red meat to the gun lovers.
 
Last edited:
The Painter said:
Her you go;
Montana Firearm Manufacturers

It took me about a minute to find it. It doesn't appear to be hypothetical, does it? Try to answer your question before you post. I won't do your home work anymore.
Click to expand...

Apparently a case hasn't arisen yet. We're talking about what will likely happen when a case does arise. I'm not sure how your point is relevant to that conversation.
 
ponderingturtle said:
It is an exactly analogous case.
Click to expand...

Not really. Marijuana was illegal. These guns are not.

Freddy said:
Apparently a case hasn't arisen yet. We're talking about what will likely happen when a case does arise. I'm not sure how your point is relevant to that conversation.
Click to expand...

It is not my point. It was a counter point to someone else. You and I have both used a word that was apparently over looked by some people. The word is yet. If you read my post my point is the commerce clause.
 
The Painter said:
Not really. Marijuana was illegal. These guns are not.
Click to expand...

By state law the marijuana is entirely legal. By federal law it is illegal, rather exactly like these guns. You seem to hold marijuana to different legal standards that firearms why is that?
 
Freddy said:
I don't think you you honestly hold the opinion that Congress can legally order all able-bodied white men between the ages of 18-45 to buy a gun?
Click to expand...

Congress did exactly that in the late 1700s.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change what parky's opinion might be- and whether or not he holds that opinion is the only thing that would be related to my post.
 
ponderingturtle said:
By state law the marijuana is entirely legal. By federal law it is illegal, rather exactly like these guns. You seem to hold marijuana to different legal standards that firearms why is that?
Click to expand...

There's the second amendment right to bear arms, but there is no similar amendment about the right to grow pot.

It's not that I think marijuana is the monstrous evil some people make it, but certainly there's no constitutional issue involved.
 
cwalner said:
To me, this likely won't fly for many reasons.

They are clearly trying to use a technicality to get around the use of the commerce clause to regulate firearms. In order to pull this off, I imaging the feds will have them prove that the company does 0 interstate commerce. Not only would they have to prove that the don't sell the guns outside of AZ, but they would have to prove they don't purchase any parts, supplies or services from outside AZ (this means that they can't have Windows or any MS products on thier computers because they are produced in WA)

If AZ wants to use petty technicalities to create a loophole, then should expect the feds to use equally petty technicalities to close it.
Click to expand...

That's the problem with the commerce clause.

Its original purpose was to limit the power of the Federal government. But the founders couldn't foresee, unsurprisingly, how the economic world would change 200+ years later.

Today, due to modern economics, technology, and so on, practically everything is made with some parts or workers or fuel or whatever from another state. So by the letter of the law, the federal government can regulate practically anything.

Since, on the letter of the law, it seems the federal government is correct in using the commerce clause, the states would have to either to use really bizarre technicalities all the time, or amend the Constitution to explicitly forbid the federal government from interfering in certain things.
 
Bob Klase said:
Doesn't change what parky's opinion might be- and whether or not he holds that opinion is the only thing that would be related to my post.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that this is where he likely got that example. There was a thread on it not long ago.
 
Skeptic said:
That's the problem with the commerce clause.

Its original purpose was to limit the power of the Federal government. But the founders couldn't foresee, unsurprisingly, how the economic world would change 200+ years later.

Today, due to modern economics, technology, and so on, practically everything is made with some parts or workers or fuel or whatever from another state. So by the letter of the law, the federal government can regulate practically anything.

Since, on the letter of the law, it seems the federal government is correct in using the commerce clause, the states would have to either to use really bizarre technicalities all the time, or amend the Constitution to explicitly forbid the federal government from interfering in certain things.
Click to expand...

I think what you seemignly fail to grasp, however, is that the same changes in our society that allow the feds to regulate according to the letter of the commerce clause also make it more practical and appropriate that such items be regulated at a federal, rather than state level.
 
ponderingturtle said:
By state law the marijuana is entirely legal. By federal law it is illegal, rather exactly like these guns. You seem to hold marijuana to different legal standards that firearms why is that?
Click to expand...

OK, lets see"By state law the marijuana is entirely legal." What state is it "entirely legal"? Not just medical but entirely.

You seem to hold marijuana to different legal standards that firearms why is that
Click to expand...

Because I can't shoot you with a joint, and I can't smoke my gun.:boggled:
 
cwalner said:
I think what you seemignly fail to grasp, however, is that the same changes in our society that allow the feds to regulate according to the letter of the commerce clause also make it more practical and appropriate that such items be regulated at a federal, rather than state level.
Click to expand...

Nah, a little thing called state rights. Besides why should New Jersey or New York, have the same rules as Utah or Nevada. There is not a lot in common
 
The Painter said:
Not really. Marijuana was illegal. These guns are not.



It is not my point. It was a counter point to someone else. You and I have both used a word that was apparently over looked by some people. The word is yet. If you read my post my point is the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

The point of the question in the OP was related to whether a state could declare federal laws and/or regulations void within their boundaries. The answer is no, and everyone with a clue knows it. Presumably, this includes the legislators who passed the law, which makes me conclude they were grandstanding.

A second, different, issue is whether the regulation of guns, not to mention all sorts of things that could conceivably fall under the commerce clause, ought to be considered constitutional. The court could conceivably declare certain gun regulations unconstitutional, but the fact that a state had passed a law would have absolutely no bearing on the question, because states can't nullify federal laws.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
There's the second amendment right to bear arms, but there is no similar amendment about the right to grow pot.

It's not that I think marijuana is the monstrous evil some people make it, but certainly there's no constitutional issue involved.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough the supreme court has not ruled federal gun laws unconstitutional so the second amendment is moot, as those laws do not violate it. But the issue of federal vs state laws is identical.

The constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to outlaw plants either.
 
The Painter said:
OK, lets see"By state law the marijuana is entirely legal." What state is it "entirely legal"? Not just medical but entirely.
Click to expand...

They were operating under the laws of the state, so operating in an entirely legal fashion. They were not operating between states. Seems like this is exactly the same issue that the gunnuts are using here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom