PDA

View Full Version : Trade Law and Gun Bans


Roy Mustang
03-27-2006, 10:44 PM
I don't know a whole lot about this, but I remember from my time in business school that both interstate commerce and international trade were regulated by the federal government, and not the states.

I was under the impression that Arizona could not ban products made in California for example say something like Cheese. Arizona could regulate its use in public i.e. no eating california cheese on public property, but not out right ban it or its ownership. Just like if you want to drive your car on california's public roads you need to have insurance, a license, and registration(pass smog), but if i want to drive my Nascar around at Infineon I don't need registration(don't pass smog), or a license, or insurance, if the track's owner says ok.

Does trade law allow for one state to ban another's products? Or only regulate their use in public?

Out of curiousity have there ever been any lawsuits challenging firearms regulations on economic grounds?

I think that throwing out some of these firearms laws could potentially work, on a international free trade or in interstate commerace challenge.

just my 2 cents

knight_dive
03-28-2006, 12:12 AM
I can't claim to know or understand the laws in question except for vague references I've heard at one time or another, but I like this train of thought. I suppose though that the plaintiff in the case would have to be one of the out of state manufacturers, and preferrably one where the case could be brought before any court other than the 9th circus court. Sounds like something Ronnie Barrett might jump at. Does the law apply to products manufactured IN another state, or with the support and backing OF another state as most of the agricultural industry seems to be government sponsored?

adamsreeftank
03-28-2006, 12:13 AM
Sounds like it is worth a shot.

Are you going to pay the lawyers?
:D

ohsmily
03-28-2006, 1:21 AM
You guys are funny. The commerce clause does not prevent CA from regulating and banning various firearms.

States can ban many things without preclusion by the commerce clause. (many different chemicals, certain medications, etc).

69Mach1
03-28-2006, 6:47 PM
You guys are funny. The commerce clause does not prevent CA from regulating and banning various firearms.

States can ban many things without preclusion by the commerce clause. (many different chemicals, certain medications, etc).


Yeah, but isn't banning one manufacturer from selling here, and allowing another to sell unfair. Right?

glen avon
03-28-2006, 7:12 PM
life is not fair, neither is the law.

MsJamie
03-28-2006, 9:15 PM
Yeah, but isn't banning one manufacturer from selling here, and allowing another to sell unfair. Right?

It might be the basis of getting rid of 12276 and 12276.5 ("The List"), but 12276.1 (SB23) would be untouched.

Once that happens, then we would be able to buy currently listed rifles, such as the Armalite AR-10, appropriately outfitted with a fixed magazine, of course.

Actually, getting rid of the list altogether is the only way I can see to make this whole "off list" mess go away. The politicians would simply declare those sections as redundant, since every rifle on the list is also banned under SB23. The lower buying frenzy would go away, the DOJ would accomplish its goal of making sure that these new lowers would never become SB23-free AWs, and the millions of dollars that would have been spent on registration get saved.

It makes too much sense, so there's no chance of it happening.

Mark in Eureka
03-29-2006, 10:56 PM
But maybe Colt or Bushmaster could sue in Federal Court under the Commerce Clause that they are being injured because they can not sell an AR type receiver in California, and almost everyone else can with the blessings of California, and the AG will do nothing to stop it.

Why is Colt Prohibited from selling the very same item Stag does with the blessing of the California AG. We are suppose to be equal under the law, but the AG does nothing to equal the playing field when he finds a inequality being applied by the state between two manufactures of the same product.

Maybe, it could be shown there is some sort of collusion in the re-strant of trade, because Colt can not sell it products and Stag and companies can, and California could be held liable for treble damages under the Sherman Anti Trust Act. It may seem strange that an anti trust law could be use against a state, however remember this same act was used by business against unions for its first 30 years.

Roy Mustang
03-31-2006, 1:43 AM
Look into NAFTA chapter 11 California almost go screwed on that with methanex and MTBE.