Alaska Steps Up
If you didn’t sell it in another state (interstate commerce) so what?
Wouldn’t you have to have a CCW permit that is recognized in the other state?
Posted by harleycowboy58
05/06/2009 at 01:10 PM
Well, only if we’re talking about having a pistol in your pocket. The Feds regulate all firearms, not just little pistols.
I’m thinking a citizen could come and go with whatever guns they wanted to. That’s merely property. Hunters do this all the time anyway. And a citizen selling their own property, well, that’s what the “gun show loophole” is all about. But when that Alaska gun factory tries to sell their products in New Mexico, that’s where the fed regs come into play. Within the boundaries of the state, the feds can kiss off.
Generally the states themselves have laws that prohibit people from bringing their personal property (ie guns) across state lines to sell. Crossing the borders allows the feds to stick their noses in.
Guys, you’re confusing fact with reality. The Interstate Commerce Clause is at best a shabby excuse to circumvent local control. On the federal level, the 2nd Amendment now stands for what it says, subject only to some degree of LOCAL control. The court cases that would follow a state law permitting unrestricted firearms manufacture would be interesting to say the least. The entire issue of State’s Rights hasn’t even been talked about since it went down in ignominy with the end of legalized racial discrimination.
Now, you can construct two arguments. One says that if a state wants to legalize the the manufacture of weapons and ammunition so long as the weapons and ammunition aren’t intentionally exported out of the state by the manufacturer/distributor, then that manufacture should be completely legal. The second argument is one that you won’t like. The 2nd Amendment, even though it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, has made the regulation of arms federal business because it appears in the Bill of Rights. The feds instituted their own regulation about firearms over 200 years ago, therefore it can’t be something left up to the states. The Bill of Rights is certainly a federal document. If the 2nd Amendment can be used to take away a state’s ability to restrict firearms, then it can also take away a state’s ability to permit firearms. God only knows where this would wind up after the lawyers get their teeth into it. Anyone want to guess which way the ACLU will go?
Ladies and gentlemen, as much as I like the idea of finding a big loophole (the MAS 49/56 still makes me smile) in federal attempts to regulate and/or ban firearms, I think we’re screwed.
Jeff? What are the last 4 words of the 2A? SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. What that says, in any but the most twisted logic, is that the government may not restrict your ability to keep and bear arms. As none have produced a sufficient case to make the tyrants STFU in DC, these 10th Amendment cases are the next best thing. As with the States Rights, we now bring in the Interstate Commerce Clause. Any findings against the states, under proviso that the ICC not be violated, is in direct violation of the 10A. This will then produce a domino effect, in all probability. And if 35 States grow a pair between them, the existent fed is removed.
I think Oklahoma is doing something similar as well.
In WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
The Secretary of Agriculture Held that:
“If you grow wheat and use it all yourself, Because you withhold it from Interstate Commerce, that has an effect on Interstate Commerce”, therefore they have the authority to Regulate it under The Commerce Clause.
Just because It does not cross State Lines does not mean that it has no effect on Interstate Commerce.
I’m sure the Feds will apply this to firearms and Ammo as well.
I know that’s what BATFE and Holder will argue.
Next entry: A Box With Four Sides
Previous entry: IS SAVAGE BEING SAVAGED AS BRIT BAN TAKES HOLD.