Gun Laws and States rights

by Deputy Dog 19 Replies latest jw friends

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    This could be really big!

    Proposed gun law couched states' rights language

    Politics ยป Conservative lawmakers want to keep firearms liberally accessible.

    From: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_12276753?source=rss

    Some Utah legislators are eyeing a bill aimed at preventing the federal government from regulating guns in the state.

    Montana's Legislature recently passed a bill that Gov. Brian Schweitzer signed into law that would exempt guns made in the state and kept within its borders from federal regulations, including registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

    It's an idea that's appealing to some of Utah's conservative legislators, who say President Barack Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress are strongly anti-gun and are trying to overstep their bounds and infringing on states' rights.

    "I think [Montana's law] preempts somewhat what the federal government is trying to do right now in gun registration," said Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman. "This is something Utah should look into. We should look into several different avenues to reassert state rights."

    Wimmer says he or one of his colleagues may run a similar bill in next year's legislative session, and it's an idea that has traction among many legislators who are fiercely pro-gun rights and pro-states' rights.

    "I wish I had thought of it," said Rep. Ken Sumsion, R-American Fork. "I would support legislation like that in a heartbeat because basically the federal government is continuing to move to try to restrain guns."

    Not everyone is as eager to jump on the issue.

    Montana's law likely will face legal challenge, and potentially could be tied up in the

    court system for years. That makes Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck, D-Salt Lake City, hesitant to pass similar legislation in Utah.

    "Testing how far we can expand gun rights when we already have fairly liberal gun ownership laws is not a priority in my book given our current economic challenges," she said. "I'd rather let Montana take the lead on this and see how far they can get with this law as on first blush I have some questions about its constitutionality."

    The Utah Shooting Sports Council lists eight firearms manufacturers in the state.

    Such a law likely wouldn't have a noticeable affect on business at Browning, probably the best known of these companies.

    The only weapons Browning manufactures in Salt Lake City directly are the Buck Mark .22 caliber pistol and rifle, and demand is so high worldwide that the company can't produce enough of them in a year.

    "Browning is a worldwide vendor with company vendors all over the place," said spokesman Scott Grange. "It's such a small percentage of guns that are made and bought in Utah, comparatively, that it wouldn't affect business at all."

    Rep. Curt Oda, R-Clearfield, has spoken with some of the drafters of Montana's law, and has contacted the National Rifle Association about it.

    He says he still has some questions about specifics such as the ability to leave guns as an inheritance to an out-of-state relative.

    "I'm taking a wait-and-see attitude, but I wouldn't be adverse to seeing the bill pass here," he said. "Other states will try to run similar bills, and we'll see what happens on a national scale. It's just one of those test-type deals, but there's merit behind the idea."

    [email protected]

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    Utah is following Texas in this.

    Montana was the first.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/175016/1/Revolutionary-New-Gun-Law

    BTS

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    I'm confident that the Commerce Clause will be used to regulate this.

  • John Doe
    John Doe
    I'm confident that the Commerce Clause will be used to regulate this.

    This may depend on who the next justices will be.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    I'm confident that the Commerce Clause will be used to regulate this.

    It was invoked in 2005 in Gonzales vs Raich regarding medical marijuana in California. The current court could possibly rule the same when it comes to guns. Of course, there is not an amendment enshrining the right to weed. For arms, we have the 2nd. Regarding the misuse of the CC, we have FDR and the New Deal court to thank for all of this. 1942. Wickard vs Filburn. The REAL day that will live in infamy. With Filburn it was grain he grew on his own land to feed his family and livestock. For Raich it was marijuana. On the one hand we had the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and on the other we have the DEA and several Acts. Same thing. For a little while after 1995 it looked like things were going to turn around (United States vs Lopez).

    Now tell me, how can something you grow on your own property for your personal use alone be interstate commerce?

    BTS

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    For a little balance...

    I have personally benefited from perversions of the Commerce Clause.

    OSHA, Labor Laws, etc.

    -LWT

  • John Doe
    John Doe
    Now tell me, how can something you grow on your own property for your personal use alone be interstate commerce?

    If I recall, the reasoning in that case was that growing more wheat than you're allowed affected interstate commerce because it altered the interstate market. If you're growing your own stuff, you're not buying it from someone else, and you may be selling it, further affecting the interstate market. The whole intention of the law in question was to prevent market swings and fluctuations.

    In this instance, you're misstating the case. THe holding was not that intrastate wheat was interstate commerce, but that it affected interstate commerce. How can the federal government regulate interstate commerce if it cannot regulate that which directly affects it?

  • John Doe
    John Doe

    Some of the original anti discrimination laws against blacks had their power originating in the commerce clause. At one time, blacks could not find hotel rooms just anywhere. Congress came in and made such discrimination illegal, based on the argument that hotels are directly related to interstate commerce and have a substantial, negative effect when blacks are excluded.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    In this instance, you're misstating the case. THe holding was not that intrastate wheat was interstate commerce, but that it affected interstate commerce. How can the federal government regulate interstate commerce if it cannot regulate that which directly affects it?

    That is a pretty ridiculous perversion of the CC. Treating it in this way means that by means of it Federal government it can regulate anything, nullifying the 9th and 10th Amendments. If the Commerce Clause applies to anything that somehow indirectly affects interstate commerce, it applies to everything.

    BTS

  • John Doe
    John Doe

    If the Commerce Clause applies to anything that somehow indirectly affects interstate commerce,

    We're not talking about indirect affects. We're talking about direct affects.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit