PDA

View Full Version : Bond v. United States and Federal Guns Laws


sholling
06-16-2011, 2:01 PM
As a layman it has seemed like one of the major roadblocks to overturning federal laws on 10th Amendment grounds has been the issue of standing to bring suit. Bond v. United States (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1227.pdf) seems like a game changer because it's a unanimous decision that affirms an individual right to challenge federal laws based on federalism violations. I'm wondering if that gives us more ammunition to challenge a host of federal gun laws and regulations.

Legal scholar discussion at Volokh (http://volokh.com/2011/06/16/fidelity-to-principles-of-federalism-is-not-for-the-states-alone-to-vindicate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volo kh+Conspiracy%29&utm_content)

Southwest Chuck
06-16-2011, 2:34 PM
After reading this, would this decision help Montana and/or a Montana resident fight federal gun laws in respect to Montana gun manufacturers/ non -Commerce claims?

choprzrul
06-16-2011, 2:44 PM
Oh my, this could open a whole bunch of cans -o- worms on many fronts.

Is it just me, or did SCOTUS just undermine the federal government's intrusion into anything not enumerated or economic in nature?

Does the federal GFSZ crumble under this decision?

.

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 2:59 PM
Oh my, this could open a whole bunch of cans -o- worms on many fronts.

Is it just me, or did SCOTUS just undermine the federal government's intrusion into anything not enumerated or economic in nature?

Does the federal GFSZ crumble under this decision?


It would sure seem that SCOTUS is finally taking their job of adhereing strictly to the US-CON quite seriously and realizing that several decades worth of bad precedent and legislating from the bench needs to be undone.

The GFSZ would be a great example of that.......why is it the Fed Govt's job to be forcing this on everyone in the nation when states are perfectly able to deal with this issue themselves if they see a need for it. Some serious restraints on the interstate commerce clause need to be put into place. Like once something has been purchased and is now "personal property" it's not part of interstate commerce anymore hence not under the pervue of Congress.....so someone transporting personal property thru a school zone would fall out of the bounds of Congressional control.

yellowfin
06-16-2011, 3:13 PM
It would sure seem that SCOTUS is finally taking their job of adhereing strictly to the US-CON quite seriously and realizing that several decades worth of bad precedent and legislating from the bench needs to be undone.I'll believe that they believe that when they get rid of Wickard, Carolene, Slaughterhouse, Miller (ENTIRELY, NFA and all the rest), Raich, Kelo... gestures and innuendo are like "almost sales"--almost, maybe, probably, and later don't put money in my pocket or food on my table. They don't seem too quick and enthusiastic to do what actually has real, immediate, tangible, iron clad results when it's for our side in such a way that the other side can't wriggle their way out of.

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 3:15 PM
I'll believe that they believe that when they get rid of Wickard, Carolene, Slaughterhouse, Miller (ENTIRELY, NFA and all the rest), Raich, Kelo... gestures and innuendo are like "almost sales"--almost, maybe, probably, and later don't put money in my pocket or food on my table.

Well the undoing of decades of bad precedent wont happen over night. But there have been some pretty helpful first steps handed out in the couple of years.

Peaceful John
06-16-2011, 3:22 PM
Congratulations to Gene. He wrote just a week or 10 days ago something about "just wait, some pleasant surprises are in store" (my paraphrase). It just never occurred to me that this Bond v. thing might be one of them.

Certainly, there'll be some low-hanging fruit on this one. All Fed firearm regulations come to mind, as well as many applications of that pesky Commerce clause. Things do seem to breaking our way this year.

Cordially,
John

Super Spy
06-16-2011, 3:33 PM
At least 5 five members of SCOTUS are trying to adhere to the constitution.....Sotomayor and her ilk on the other hand substitute personal opinion for legal justification whenever possible.

Untamed1972
06-16-2011, 3:54 PM
At least 5 five members of SCOTUS are trying to adhere to the constitution.....Sotomayor and her ilk on the other hand substitute personal opinion for legal justification whenever possible.


To quote the link in the OP:

"Today the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion in Bond v. United States"

So on this one ALL NINE OF THEM saw the light.

sholling
06-16-2011, 3:57 PM
If memory serves the 2nd Circuit has for decades been using draconian standing requirements to block individual challenges to federal laws. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

tommyid1
06-16-2011, 4:02 PM
This is exciting. I love reading well thought out arguments

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

htjyang
06-16-2011, 5:04 PM
I think it is more likely that this is going to be more the exception rather than the rule. When conservative justices tried to revive federalism during the 90s, liberals fought them every step of the way. US v. Lopez was 5-4 with the usual suspects in dissent.

My guess is that the facts of the case are so unusual, the tactic employed by the federal government was so outrageous that even the liberals couldn't stomach it. Furthermore, with the departure of Justice Stevens, I'm not sure anyone had taken over his role as the chief liberal strategist. That may have caused some confusion in their ranks.

Personally, I'm not in favor of individuals bringing forward 10th Amendment claims. I think that is more properly reserved for the states. I think a 9th Amendment claim is more appropriate.

Finally, we should also remember that the petitioner didn't win on the merits. All she got was a chance to raise the claim. I doubt her claim will actually prevail.

That said, this case should provide some useful citations in future cases.

smn
06-16-2011, 5:39 PM
The recent Bond decision is very important. The citizens are turning the tide.
From Volokh's wesite quoting J. Kennedy in the Bond opinion:
Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to scitizens the libertie that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power. [Internal quotations and citations omitted.] . . .

Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. . . .

An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of thos laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate. . . .

If the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object.
Read more about it here: http://volokh.com/2011/06/16/fidelity-to-principles-of-federalism-is-not-for-the-states-alone-to-vindicate/

Shotgun Man
06-16-2011, 7:20 PM
If this was a gun rights case, everyone would be complaining that the petitioner was a scumbag and that case would undermine our cause.

sholling
06-16-2011, 7:36 PM
Personally, I'm not in favor of individuals bringing forward 10th Amendment claims. I think that is more properly reserved for the states. I think a 9th Amendment claim is more appropriate.
Keep in mind two things:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That half of the 10th Amendment makes any expansion of federal power an assault on the powers and prerogatives of the people in addition to those of the states. This is where there anti-initiative people go off the rails. The framers specifically wanted the people directly involved in governance.
The constitution is a contractual agreement between the people and the federal government. As a result any citizen should have standing to challenge any breach of that contract.

Quser.619
06-16-2011, 7:57 PM
How much you want to bet that some pro marijuana group is already planning their suit against Federal Drug laws for medical marijuana. Well after the brownies that is...

Funny, I can't imagine that using this ruling in over-turning ridiculous Federal firearms laws will be as unanimous in decision if any case utilizing this ruling ever makes it to the SCOTUS

sholling
06-16-2011, 8:40 PM
How much you want to bet that some pro marijuana group is already planning their suit against Federal Drug laws for medical marijuana. Well after the brownies that is...
Let's hope not. While the 4 conservatives and the centrist would likely be sympathetic to a lawsuit against guns laws - like the gun free school zone, their anti-drug prejudices would leave them far too tempted rule against the the 10th Amendment in a drug case.

ChuangTzu
06-16-2011, 8:43 PM
That already happened with Raich. Standing wasn't controversial, but the medical marijuana case was tried and lost. It was one of those "by not participating in interstate commerce, you are affecting interstate commerce" cases...

ddestruel
06-16-2011, 8:49 PM
lots of potential both ways if this case is used properly to bolster the right arguments many federal over-reaches could fall but i suspect it will be handled prematurely and bad rulings will weaken the potential uses of this case

Funtimes
06-17-2011, 12:20 AM
Seems like this could set the stage for a destruction of Federal GFSZ', and a slew of other laws and regulations.

kcbrown
06-17-2011, 4:53 PM
The concurring opinion is particularly juicy:


In short, a law “beyond the power of Congress,” for any reason, is “no law at all.” Nigro v. United States, 276 U. S. 332, 341 (1928). The validity of Bond’s conviction depends upon whether the Constitution permits Congress to enact 229. Her claim that it does not must be considered and decided on the merits.



Wow. The environment suddenly just got a lot more target-rich.