Jump to content

Montana Shooting Sports Assn v Holder


mauserme

Recommended Posts

As far as I know this suit was brought with the intention of getting it before the Supreme Court, so this is a step in that direction:

 

http://www.washingto...0093004268.html

 

 

Judge dismisses states' gun suit

 

 

By MATT GOURASThe Associated Press

 

Thursday, September 30, 2010; 2:31 PM

 

HELENA, Mont. -- A federal judge in Montana is dismissing a lawsuit launched by gun rights advocates and states seeking freedom from federal gun laws.

 

The decision from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy was expected since his magistrate a month ago recommended tossing out the lawsuit.

 

The decision sides with the U.S. Department of Justice, which says Congress can set standards on such items as guns through its power to regulate interstate commerce.

 

Gun control advocates who also joined in the case welcomed the decision.

 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence says the court rejected a "dangerous, misguided and unconstitutional law."

 

Montana, Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia were seeking freedom from federal gun laws.

 

 

<BR clear=all>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how folks (including Brady Campaign) seem concerned about constitutionality largely when it suits them.

 

I would say only when it suits them.

Much like the Democratic's concern with the First Amendment as it relates to Islamic Centers.

I don't recall that level of passion for other faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting how folks (including Brady Campaign) seem concerned about constitutionality largely when it suits them.

 

I would say only when it suits them.

Much like the Democratic's concern with the First Amendment as it relates to Islamic Centers.

I don't recall that level of passion for other faiths.

 

Ain't that the truth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Nothing in this case challenges laws regulating inter-state trade in firearms, so nothing in that regard would change as a result of this action.

 

At issue is the regulation of intra-state trade. Plaintiff asserts a right to purchase a firearm manufactured in Montana, by a resident of Montana, for use within the state free of interference from any but local regulation. They contend authority is granted the Federal governement only to regulate trade that crosses state borders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that even the most remote connection to interstate commerce gives congress near plenipotentiary power to regulate something. There are several cases that seem directly on point where products have been sold only intrastate but the courts have ruled that it affected interstate commerce.

 

I do not see this headed anywhere directly helpful for us.

 

OTOH, it may have considerable value as a political statement. Just as the state medical MJ laws have no direct effect on federal law, it does send a strong message if a lot of states were to enact such MJ laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that even the most remote connection to interstate commerce gives congress near plenipotentiary power to regulate something. There are several cases that seem directly on point where products have been sold only intrastate but the courts have ruled that it affected interstate commerce.

 

I do not see this headed anywhere directly helpful for us.

 

OTOH, it may have considerable value as a political statement. Just as the state medical MJ laws have no direct effect on federal law, it does send a strong message if a lot of states were to enact such MJ laws.

 

Most of the briefs touch on the fact that the two cases that set the commerce clause's usurpation into the field of intrastate commerce were, Wickard and Raich. It was pointed out that under Wickard and Raich, the ability of the federal government to step into intrastate regulation for the purpose to 'preserve or destroy a national market' . Plaintiff's argue these cases are not controlling because the NFA & GCA 68 seeek neither to preserve nor destroy a national market, but to regulate intrastate commerce in firearms and other weapons to assist local police in crime prevention(1). Crime prevention is not a constitutionally valid reason to usurp state and local police powers as laid down by SCOTUS in the Lopez decision striking down the GFSZA.

 

Wickard and Raich also deal specifically with commodity markets, or the creation of one by the state of California as in Raich. Even if firearms were to be placed in the same class as wheat and marijuana, neither wheat or marijuana have a specific enumerated protection provided by the constitution.

 

This will be interesting indeed.

 

(1) Public Law 90-618 (1968): “to assist the States effectively to regulate firearms traffic within their borders.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this one undoubtedly represents a very high hurdle with potential ramifications far beyond firearms.

 

Based on my above comments, I believe it is possible for the courts to carve out exceptions, specifically for firearms based on either the inapplicability of Wickard and Raich and/or the specific protection given to arms by the second amendment without opening a Pandora's box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...