The Brady Campaign against state sovereignty

November 3, 9:48 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

     Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan seems to have
        problems understanding this document

---

Related Articles

• ATF to Tennessee: We're above your law
• ATF to Montana: 'You will respect our authoritah!'
• Montana's stand for 2nd and 10th Amendments
• Medical marijuana and guns: The Obama administration's split personality on state sovereignty
• Ohio joins states declaring gun independence

The Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan is apparently as unimpressed with the 10th Amendment as he is with the 2nd.  This can be seen by his reaction to passage in Tennessee and Montana (and consideration elsewhere) of bills that would exempt firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories made and sold within the state, from federal gun laws.

That reaction is one of fussy disapproval.

We know that individuals can defy the law. Can a state legislature defy the law? When it comes to the gun issue, apparently it can.

I refer to the extraordinary legislation passed into law by the states of Montana and Tennessee declaring that guns or ammunition manufactured and retained entirely within the borders of those states are "not subject to federal law." Apparently, similar legislation has been introduced in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Colorado.  [Ed. note: you forgot Ohio, Dennis!]

Henigan then goes on to justify federal gun laws under the infamous "interstate commerce clause."

Under the Constitution, Congress has certain enumerated powers, including the power "to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states." In its 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle, first set out in the Depression-era case of Wickard v. Filburn, that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate purely intrastate activity involving a product, if it rationally concludes that to leave such activity unregulated would undercut its regulation of interstate commerce in the product. In Gonzales, the Supreme Court upheld Congressional power to ban the possession and use of marijuana, even by a California resident who cultivated her own marijuana and used it for personal medical purposes within the state entirely in accord with state law.

There are a couple problems with that "reasoning."  One is that in justifying the Gonzales v. Raich decision, one of the points on which Justice Scalia relied is the inability to distinguish "controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate" from "controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate."  That would not be the case with firearms, ammo, and accessories manufactured and sold under the new state laws, which require the items to be stamped "Made in Montana" (or Tennessee, etc.).

Another problem is an issue I pointed out earlier--the federal government itself, under the Obama administration, is backing off from such an abusive interpretation of the "commerce clause," at least with respect to marijuana.

A White House spokesman repeated Obama's view that "federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws."

Indeed they should not, and by virtue of the much-abused 10th Amendment, must not.  Henigan, we can be sure, will try to find some way of dismissing the 10th Amendment's relevance--just as he dismissed the 2nd Amendment's relevance in the lead-up to the Heller decision.  Perhaps even now, there's a recording of him reciting the 10th Amendment, edited by him to fit his beliefs--something like this, perhaps:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved . . .

Amazing what can be accomplished with a bit of creative editing of the Constitution, but I wonder; where does one get "Liquid Parchment"?