Montana Loading Another Shot for States’ Rights

[Mr. Rodgers]

HELENA – Montana lawmakers are betting the words 'Made in Montana' might be able to trigger a court showdown with the federal government, while also freeing some gun owners and dealers from background check and licensing requirements.

Under a proposed law before the Legislature, firearms, weapons components and ammunition made in Montana and kept in Montana would be exempt from federal regulation, potentially releasing some Montanans from national gun registration and licensing laws. The legislation could also free gun purchasers in the state from background checks.

More on the story:

http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/montana_loading_another_shot_for_states_rights/8431/

[Elmar]

The Fed will override it with the same Wickard v Filburn reasoning they struck down Gonzales v Roach. Interstate trade means intrastate because if they didn't buy it there they might have maybe bought it from someone outside the state.

FDR should have been shot.

[ThoughtCriminal]

The Fed will override it with the same Wickard v Filburn reasoning they struck down Gonzales v Roach. Interstate trade means intrastate because if they didn't buy it there they might have maybe bought it from someone outside the state.

+1, what he said

[ehidle]

The Fed will override it with the same Wickard v Filburn reasoning they struck down Gonzales v Roach. Interstate trade means intrastate because if they didn't buy it there they might have maybe bought it from someone outside the state.

FDR should have been shot.

I would not be surprised if the Government also argued that, since the materials used to make the guns came from somewhere else (i.e. raw materials), they are therefore regulated as an "interstate" product.

The government is completely out of control.

[BSH]

I would not be surprised if the Government also argued that, since the materials used to make the guns came from somewhere else (i.e. raw materials), they are therefore regulated as an "interstate" product.

This exact concept is already enshrined in law from previous USSC precedents. Montana would have to demonstrate that the raw materials used to manufacture their firearms also came from and were refined/processed in-state. At no point in the manufacturing process may any of the materials have ever traveled outside the state.

And then you have Wickard v Filburn, as Elmar pointed out. That is absolutely one of the worst abuses by the court EVER, right up there with Plessy v Ferguson.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/317/111/case.html
Think about it: the government and the court agreed that the individual does not matter as opposed to the macroeconomic or societal effect. I've always believed that justice has to be applied STRICTLY at the individual level, on the idea that injustice for one is injustice for all. The meaning of Wickard is that justice is applied to all only as a body, and if that doesn't bring justice to an individual, too bad. Screw the person, serve the state, in other words.

Even though the Farm Marketing Act that was in question was later repealed, Wickard stands. Wickard v Filburn was a 9-0 decision, and has been cited, relied on, and expanded in subsequent cases. Wickard totally eviscerates the commerce clause, and voids the 10th amendment in the process. Given how much of government, by statute, regulation, and court precedent, is dependent on this decision and its descendants, it would take a truly radical chain of events to overturn it. But our written constitution will never be whole while Wickard stands.

[69chevy]

So what happens when the supreme court sides with the feds like they always do? A bill to kick the ATF out of wyoming?

[King 5.45]

FDR should have been shot.

How about just a JATO on his wheel chair?