mauserme Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:47 PM Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 06:47 PM 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 More sharing options...
Sigma Posted September 30, 2010 at 09:00 PM Share Posted September 30, 2010 at 09:00 PM Hurry before Obama appoints another judge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarandFan Posted October 1, 2010 at 01:23 AM Share Posted October 1, 2010 at 01:23 AM Interesting how folks (including Brady Campaign) seem concerned about constitutionality largely when it suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWBH Posted October 1, 2010 at 02:44 AM Share Posted October 1, 2010 at 02:44 AM 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 More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted October 1, 2010 at 04:09 AM Share Posted October 1, 2010 at 04:09 AM "Judge Dismisses Montana Lawsuit"...lose the battle but win the war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Roark Posted October 1, 2010 at 04:10 AM Share Posted October 1, 2010 at 04:10 AM Hurry before Obama appoints another judge Word! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzard Posted October 1, 2010 at 02:06 PM Share Posted October 1, 2010 at 02:06 PM 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 More sharing options...
mauserme Posted July 30, 2011 at 09:31 PM Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 at 09:31 PM With Montana now one of 8 states enacting a Firearms Freedom Act, its getting more interesting in court. I haven't had a chance to read much of the attached material but after scanning the Brady brief it seems they entirely missed the 10th Amendment argument in regard to the Commerce Clause, trying instead to turn it onto a firearm safety case.MSSA v Holder Notice of Appeal to 9th Circuit 12-02-2010.pdfMSSA v Holder - Appellant\'s Principal Brief 06-06-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder Center for Constitutonal Juispudence AC Brief in Support of Appellant 06-06-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder - Pacific Legal Foundation\'s AC Brief in Support of Appellant 06-09-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder 30 Montana Legislators AC Brief Supporting Reversal 06-13-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder - States of UT, AK, ID, MI, NE, SC, SD, WV & WY AC Brief in Support of Appellant 06-13-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder - Weapons Collectors Society of Montana AC Brief in Support of Appellants 06-13-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder GOA AC Brief in Support of Reversal 06-13-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder Goldwater & Cato AC Brief in Support of Appellant 06-13-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder State of Montana AC Brief 06-13-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder\'s Appellee Brief On Appeal 07-21-2011.pdfMSSA v Holder Brady Center et al AC Brief in Support of Defendant 07-27-2011.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F12Mahon Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:19 PM Share Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:19 PM If this is successful, what happens when someone from out of state attempts to purchase? Eugene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:52 PM 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 More sharing options...
bob Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM Share Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:53 PM 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 More sharing options...
mauserme Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM Author Share Posted July 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM Yes, this one undoubtedly represents a very high hurdle with potential ramifications far beyond firearms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted July 31, 2011 at 12:58 AM Share Posted July 31, 2011 at 12:58 AM 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 More sharing options...
lockman Posted July 31, 2011 at 01:05 AM Share Posted July 31, 2011 at 01:05 AM 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 More sharing options...
mauserme Posted August 1, 2011 at 11:27 PM Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 at 11:27 PM Your posts are always a welcome lesson Lockman. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted August 5, 2011 at 12:38 AM Author Share Posted August 5, 2011 at 12:38 AM Getting back on topic, Appelant's Reply Brief was filed today;MSSA v Holder Appelants Reply Brief 08-04-2011.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.