The Brady Campaign's Peter Hamm thinks this is
what state sovereignty looks like (DEA photo/public
domain, click to enlarge)
Related Articles
-
The Brady Campaign against state sovereignty
-
Missouri to introduce Firearms Freedom Act
-
New Hampshire proposes state sovereignty law--with a twist
-
More states pass 'Firearms Freedom Act' legislation
-
Wyoming Representative Allen Jaggi introduces firearms freedom act with "teeth"
-
Missourians, if you want the Firearms Freedom Act, 'raise a ruckus'
-
Firearms Freedom Act still picking up steam
-
State No. 6 tells feds to stuff their gun regs
-
Missouri, look to Wyoming to see how getting a Firearms Freedom Act is done
-
Brady Center and DOJ file briefs against state gun sovereignty
-
A look at the Brady Campaign's brief against the Montana Firearms Freedom Act
-
Brady Center blows Firearms Freedom Act brief
-
Do Firearms Freedom Act plaintiffs have 'standing'?
-
Firearms Freedom Act website
-
10th Amendment Center website
With Governor Sean Parnell's signature Thursday, Alaska became the eighth state to enact some form of "Firearms Freedom Act," whereby firearms (and ammunition, accessories, etc.) manufactured within the state, and kept within the state's borders, are not subject to federal gun laws.
The reasoning is that federal authority to regulate things like guns comes only through the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. Since the Tenth Amendment reserves, to the states and to the people, any powers not explicitly delegated in the Constitution to the federal government, and since nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted power to regulate guns, the interstate commerce clause is the feds' only window into gun regulation.
This kind of thinking (that the Tenth Amendment means--you know--what it says) is described by the "progressive" TPM Muckraker as "far-right."
Supporters of gun rights have hit on a new gambit that ties in perfectly with the far-right's fears during the Obama era.
Hmm . . . "new gambit"? For a "progressive," the author seems more than a little behind the times--the Tenth Amendment's limitation on federal power may have been rather avant-garde in the late 18th Century, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but 220 years, one would think, should be enough for most of the novelty to wear off. Furthermore, challenges to the gross abuse of the interstate commerce clause have been going on (albeit with a rather pronounced lack of success) since long before Obama was born--to describe such challenges as manifestations of "the far-right's fears during the Obama era" is to show either a rather shocking ignorance of history or an utter indifference to truth.
But it gets "better."
The idea is "the latest crack cocaine for gun-rights advocates," says Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign.
Yep. According to the Brady Campaign, the exercise of 10% of the Bill of Rights--not even the 10% that usually draws their ire (and their lies)--is "the latest crack cocaine."
Jeff Matthews actually has a superb article making the case for the argument that the Firearms Freedom Acts laws don't go nearly far enough. I strongly encourage readers to give it a look (it's not long), but here's a teaser:
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Just because a gun crosses state lines does not mean it did so as a part of commerce. Many people move from state to state and take their belongings, including guns, with them. This is not commerce.
Secondly, there is a temporal issue raised by assuming any gun that has come from another state is within the ambit of federal regulatory jurisdiction. As stated, the federal government is empowered to regulate interstate commerce. But what if a gun entered a state as part of interstate trade in say, 1980, and here it is 2010? The gun is no longer the subject of any act of interstate commerce and has not been for 30 years. It is specious, at best, for anyone to believe that any product that ever was the subject of interstate commerce forever remains the subject of federal regulatory control.
Looked at in that light, it's hard to disagree with Matthews' contention that even movement of a gun (or anything else, for that matter) over state lines can, in itself, hardly be considered an accurate test of whether or not its movement is a matter of "interstate commerce."
What would Hamm call that idea--a blend of crack, heroin, and methamphetamine?
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
Preach much?
Gun "laws", such as those the Brady Mass-murder Cheerleaders salivate over, are like crack cocaine that is forcibly administered to people who only want to be left alone.
Says Andrew Kent: "Preach much?"
The Brady Campaign? They certainly do, and they want to forcefully indoctrinate ALL of us into their cult.
Well said, Mr. McManigal.
Your analysis is legally and constitutionally ignorant. States are free to enact any gun laws they want any restrictions they want or none if they want. They can prevent you from carrying a gun on your person anyplace they please or every place if thats the law they pass. The interstate commerce clause has nothing to do with it. And nether does the second amendment which is only about the states right to have armed militias.
Whom are you addressing, Liberty Belle?
The only state laws this article mentions are the Firearms Freedom Act laws, exempting guns that do not move in interstate commerce from federal regulation--and I agree that states legitimately have the power to enact such laws. As to the Second Amendment having nothing to do with it, I agree, which is why I didn't bring it up.
Interstate commerce only applies if the transaction is part of a business process designed to produce a profit. Items that are sold strictly within a state and moved across state lines as private property are not subject to the federal guidelines. Individual states have the right to regulate commerce within their states and that is all these laws being debated do. The federal government, more like Homeland security and BATFE is simply being put on notice by these states. so where is the agrument? What they have done is legal.
I'm glad that Mr. Hoffman agrees that states have the right to regulate firearms however they want, and that state's rights means that the federal government can't try to force states to allow the unregulated flow of guns anywhere and everywhere.
You kids need to grow up. You are an embarrassment to civilized adults everywhere.
Says AtlasMugged: "I'm glad that Mr. Hoffman agrees that states have the right to regulate firearms however they want, and that state's rights means that the federal government can't try to force states to allow the unregulated flow of guns anywhere and everywhere."
I don't know this "Mr. Hoffman" to whom you refer, Mugged, but if I met him, I would explain some things to him--he is clearly in dire need of some schooling.
Liberty Belle's comment stands as the correct opinion on this.
Next..
Says bc: "Liberty Belle's comment stands as the correct opinion on this.
Next.. "
Liberty Belle's opinion seems to be on something unrelated to the subject at hand.
Next..
uh no! The second amendment has no qualifiers as to who is prohibited from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, unlike other amendments the 2nd is absolute. For just one example the 1st states "Congress shall make no law.." Thereby identifying who may not trespass the rights guaranteed by said amendment. There is no qualifier on the second, it simply may not be done by anybody.
And were the courts honest the 14th would apply across the board and all this bullsh** about incorporation would be recognized for the corruption it is.
To cement their position as the leading group of anti-social whites, the "conservatives" have remained defiant against reality and insistent on pushing guns into our communities.
Questions you may not have asked yourselves in a while:
What is the point of a gun in an URBAN setting?
How many people successfully defend themselves from an attack because they have an unloaded gun on top of the fridge?
Is it safe to keep loaded guns in cities where curious children vastly outnumber serious criminals?
Where do the guns that criminals (including cartels) use come from? Aren't criminals the only ones in a position to use guns effectively?
The logical answers to these questions expose the flaws of the "conservative" gun policy. "conservatives" say more, more, more guns. And there are now more, more, more guns in the hands of criminals. Mexico gets all their guns here, which almost sounds like a one-liner... Get a clue, and don't be embarassed.
In an URBAN area, guns are for the police.
Somebody point me to an article where a licensed gunman "cured cancer" with his revolver.
Somebody tell me which city has a "batman" who uses his licensed firearm to hold down the law.
I can show you whole areas of the country packed with anti-social whites who buy guns. They go to the target range a few times a year. They hunt twice a year. And because they refuse to check their gun obsession at the city line, criminals gain the means to buy, steal, own guns and terrorize regular citizens.
There is already legal precedent where federal courts have ruled that the Feds can rgulate just about everything under the guise of the interstate commerce clause. In the case of drug policy, the courts have upheld the Fed's power to regulate marijuana, even when transactions are entirely intra-state (and therefor decidedly not inter-state commerce). Feds successfully argued that intra-state transactions compete with inter-state transactions; therefore, intra-state transactions count as inter-state commerce. If the Feds have this power to regulate drugs, then they have the same power to regulate guns. If these gun laws hold up in court, then the drug laws will come tumbling down.
Liberty Belle, besides being a very poor speller, you are an idiot.
Hey, "you are OBSESSED", I find it insulting to be called a "conservative". Know your audience and choose your "flames" accordingly.
Then, showing even MORE ignorance, you ask "What is the point of a gun in an URBAN setting?" Same as anywhere, you taterhead: to protect life, liberty, and property. That is not the job of the police, and they are incapable of doing it even if it were their job.
Kent McManagal, I am sorry I got your label wrong. You responded with a bit of rhetoric, which I will disperse with now.
You said "Then, showing even MORE ignorance, you ask "What is the point of a gun in an URBAN setting?" Same as anywhere, you taterhead: to protect life, liberty, and property. That is not the job of the police, and they are incapable of doing it even if it were their job."
The basis for this argument seems to be mostly useless sentiment. You excuse guns by saying that they are used to protect "life liberty and property" (Wow you wanted that sentence to end with a lot of words).
My original post explained very clearly that guns are more likely to cause violent incidents such as those due to accidental shootings and theft/use by criminals. Rarely can people use them for protection. If guns were not for sale in such large amounts, criminals could not use channels to get them.
You are OBSESSED. There is no natural right for humans to be able to kill anyone th
A depiction of Kent's McManigal's hypothetical gun owner:
"This criminal has confronted me with a gun. I will draw my own gun on him. Statistically speaking, this is a better way to solve this problem than a combination of and observing and reporting to proper authorities."
Nobody ever has their gun when they need it. Only a few stories a year of people shooting a would-be killer. Plenty of cases of licensed guns being stolen and used for crimes, however.
And if you conservatives (and libertarians) always carried guns, non-carrying citizens would feel unduly intimidated by meatheads choosing to brandish lethal force in a community environment. Go join the military, you are OBSESSED.
Outlaw guns and only outlaws have them. Education is key here, not mudslinging nutty soap-boxers. Get out and mingle with people out of your comfort zone. Ask questions, and (this is key here) LISTEN. I was trained in gun etiquette from 8 yrs. on. I went the first 20 yrs. of adult life a non gun owner. Then the unstable neighbor off his meds tried to rape my daughters friend (10 year old girls). He did not like me outing him and started shooting off an illegally possessed shot gun next to my bedroom window. Long story short he was evicted and we are a lot safer now that I've procured my gun and permits! We've not been bothered since. A world w/o guns is ideally conceived, but idealist's do not live in everyone Else's reality.
simply not true. No matter how hard you try to play "don't think", you'll never convince anyone guns add safety. NOT IN CITIES. go be a secret crime-fighting detective with the permission of your police station if you feel so great about your capabilities. You are OBSESSED with these guns, and because you vote for them everytime, it is SO easy for the criminals to get them. Thanks to you the criminals WILL be armed, so I guess now my reaction is supposed to be getting a gun? Yeah right, I like my kids.
Okay Obsessed why is it that violent crime and accidental shootings have declined over the last decade, in spite of the loosening of gun/carry laws around the country. on the point of "you never have your gun when you need it" that would depend on what state you reside if you live in a Libtard enclave (Chicago,new york) where it is required that you remain defenseless . I also take issue with your statement that the Mexican cartels get the majority of their weapons from the U.S., there are no gun shows/retailers that I have ever visited that sell grenades or anti-tank missiles and definitely no attack helicopters. Do you think these as well as the full auto military issue small weapons could come from the absolutely corrupt Mexican government or the Mexican army deserters that take what ever they can when they change sides?
Okay Obsessed why is it that violent crime and accidental shootings have declined over the last decade, in spite of the loosening of gun/carry laws around the country. on the point of "you never have your gun when you need it" that would depend on what state you reside if you live in a Libtard enclave (Chicago,new york) where it is required that you remain defenseless . I also take issue with your statement that the Mexican cartels get the majority of their weapons from the U.S., there are no gun shows/retailers that I have ever visited that sell grenades or anti-tank missiles and definitely no attack helicopters. Do you think these as well as the full auto military issue small weapons could come from the absolutely corrupt Mexican government or the Mexican army deserters that take what ever they can when they change sides?
Urban settings existed at the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written. Police forces did not exist at that time, but militias did, with militias comprised of all the armed adult males of a community united for the common defense of the community. There is no mention of urban settings or police forces in either document. The 2nd Amendment clearly and explicitly states what was commonly understood by the signatories to the documents to be a God given right: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The abuses of the British government in their North American colonies and in Ireland and Scotland during the previous two centuries can be observed in the design of the Federal government as described in the Constitution and with the limitation of the government's powers described in the 1st ten Amendment known as the Bill of Rights.
Continued...
When Congress met in New York beginning in March 4, 1789 and submitted to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789 twelve proposed amendments, they began the document with the following:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of the adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution: RESOLVED ...."
The two amendments concerning Congressional representation and pay were not adopted at the time, with the ten adopted amendments being the Bill of Rights.
However, it does not take much imagination to observe that the powers of government have been repeatedly misconstrued and abused. What was at the time obvious is now argued as being ambiguous and subject to interpretation to accomplish dubious objectives.
Obsessed, since doctors are 14,000 to 31,000 times more likely to kill you than a person carrying open or concealed (JAMA report on 44,000 to 98,000 medical malpractice deaths per year) versus best the VPC can show 135 deaths by CPL holders over 3 years, please explain why you aren't crying to ban doctors?
Too bad you have no real facts to support your irrational and unsubstantiated beliefs you troll.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!