Montana is at it AGAIN !! Must Read !!

[rfwobbly]

Check out this article in the July 14 Wall Street Journal !! Local pro-gun guy is challenging one 1942 Supreme Court ruling on the Interstate Commerce Clause used to allow Federal agencies authority inside a state dealing with gun sales. That single ruling also underpins the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Controlled Substances Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act and a whole host of other Federal power grabs.

Wall Street Journal Article - A Gun Activist Takes Aim at U.S. Regulatory Power

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.


So it looks like this doesn't have a chance of passing, correct?

.

 

[Sig88]

Nope not at all, but we can hope.

 

[rfwobbly]

Mr Marbut's proposal is already law in 12 states. That's what's so wonderful. What will sustain it as a law is the upcoming Federal court challenge. And although he will probably loose in the lower courts, Montana has the wherewithal to take to to the Supreme Court of the US. The SCOTUS is fairly conservative and may use it to overturn their 1942 ruling.

Then things get really interesting, because this single 1942 court ruling is the basis for the Federal government to act inside state borders on a host of issues, one of which may be the healthcare mandate which is the entire driver for ObamaCare.

Let's pray really hard for this case.

 

[cbrgator]

rfwobbly,

Look up the Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), if you want to know where the Supreme Court stands on the Commerce Clause, specifically regarding controlled substances (one of the statutes you mentioned).

 

[Owen Sparks]

The federal government is not going to give up power and no federal court will go along with this, even if it does follow the letter of the Constitution.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's just a lot of nonsense. If the Roberts court does clip the wings on Commerce, it will do so in the cases relating to Obamacare's mandate by holding the clause does not encompass an individual's decision not to engage in commerce.

The Court will not approve Montana's exclusive right to regulate "intrastate" firearms manufacture, particularly since the firearms include parts and materials obtained from all over the world. To build any firearm, even a flintlock, is to engage in interstate commerce. Far more so than just growing X acres more of wheat.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I believe we have another American hero.

Do I believe the Supreme Court will restore sanity to the commerce clause's interpretation? I can't truthfully tell you I do; honesty compels me, however, to admit my fears about Heller proved unfounded.