PDA

View Full Version : Certain firearms exempt from GSFZ?


locosway
08-19-2011, 4:35 AM
So, reading the GFSZ act law it says, "a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce". Since the Feds can only regulate under the Interstate Commerce Clause, does this mean that 80% firearms and other CA made firearms are exempt from the GFSZ?

If so, doesn't that open up a can of worms since the law is to keep people from doing something and not just material items from being present somewhere?

HowardW56
08-19-2011, 5:34 AM
There is a similar law in California, a person could be prosecuted under state law.

locosway
08-19-2011, 5:35 AM
There is a similar law in California, a person could be prosecuted under state law.

Yes, but per federal law they would be exempt, no?

Decoligny
08-19-2011, 6:14 AM
Laws make thing illegal.

If the Feds say it is illegal to eat vanilla ice cream near a school, then it is legal under Federal law to eat chocolate ice cream near a school.

If California than makes a law prohibiting the eating of any flavor ice cream near a school, just because the Feds only said vanilla doesn't mean any other flavor is "exempted" because it wasn't mentioned.

locosway
08-19-2011, 6:15 AM
Laws make thing illegal.

If the Feds say it is illegal to eat vanilla ice cream near a school, then it is legal under Federal law to eat chocolate ice cream near a school.

If California than makes a law prohibiting the eating of any flavor ice cream near a school, just because the Feds only said vanilla doesn't mean any other flavor is "exempted" because it wasn't mentioned.

I'm mainly talking about the federal GFSZ law. I understand that CA has a duplicate law, which I'm not addressing here.

CaliB&R
08-19-2011, 7:36 AM
According to SCOTUS, everything is part of interstate commerce, even things that never leave the state, or were made in the state. Some BS about not participating is participating.

Tripper
08-19-2011, 7:48 AM
The original gfsza was ruled unconstitutional due to the interstate commerce thing, the Feds changed it to say that in order to prosecute under the fed gfsza the fed has to show how it affected interstate
That's only fed though, not state
Ianal but I would think that an 80 would have no way of being connected to interstate commerce
Just my thought

Decoligny
08-19-2011, 8:38 AM
I'm mainly talking about the federal GFSZ law. I understand that CA has a duplicate law, which I'm not addressing here.

Than I misunderstood your previous statement. The exclusion is only to the Federal Law.

Your statement came right after the post about being prosecuted under state law.

1. You can still be prosecuted under state law.
2. Yes, but per federal law they would be exempt, no? (I read this as "Yes, but per federal law they would be exempt from prosecution under the state law, no?" I thought you were arguing a Federal Supremecy stance)

OleCuss
08-19-2011, 8:44 AM
.
.
.
Ianal but I would think that an 80 would have no way of being connected to interstate commerce
.
.
.

Under the current, insanely expansive judicial view of the Commerce Clause, you should consider the 80%er to be connected to interstate commerce. Note that I used the term "insanely" in that I don't think anyone with a gram of respect for original intent could agree with the current judicial view.

At this time, most courts and legislators view the Commerce Clause as giving them the excuse to do anything they want based on only the most tenuous and laughable arguments of possible miniscule effect on interstate commerce.

And with regard to firearms? Consider that most believe Montana will lose in the SCOTUS on their challenge.

spalterego
08-19-2011, 11:13 AM
You could argue it, but would almost certainly lose. The 80% firearm almost certainly contains pieces that were manufactured outside of California, ismade from materials (Steel, paint etc.) that was produced outside of California and imported, etc.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause has been very expansive and even local activities that do not actually travel in interstate commerce but which affect interstate commerce can be regulated under this interpretation of the Commerce Clause. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn ; http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZO.html.

Under Wickard, even if you dug your own ore, smelted your own steel and cast your own parts etc. you would be affecting Interstate Commerce b/c by making such a gun you would be reducing the demand for such guns by making your own instead of buying one from the stream of Interstate Commerce.

newbee1111
08-19-2011, 12:12 PM
This is the key right here:

"Under Wickard, even if you dug your own ore, smelted your own steel and cast your own parts etc. you would be affecting Interstate Commerce b/c by making such a gun you would be reducing the demand for such guns by making your own instead of buying one from the stream of Interstate Commerce."

Legally speaking "interstate commerce" doesn't mean what you think it does. Previous supreme court rulings have defined the term to be tremendously vague. Almost anything could be considered to effect interstate commerce. This is how the federal government can (or at least try to) apply regulation to almost anything within states. Appealing to the supreme court will do no good, they are the ones that came up with the definition in the first place.

spalterego
08-19-2011, 2:06 PM
This is the key right here:

" Appealing to the supreme court will do no good, they are the ones that came up with the definition in the first place.

Well they can always change their mind. Recent S.Ct. opinions indicate that at least some members would like to breath a little life back into "Interstate Commerce" as an actual restriction on Fed. Govt. power. If the Obama Health Care Mandate goes to the S. Ct. as looks very likely, I hope that the S. Ct. will use it as an opportunity to at least start the process of requiring some actual impact on Interstate Commerce.

(I know, I know, as a Gov't of defined and limited powers, the "commerce clause" is not a restriction but actually a grant of power to the federal gov't to regulate things that affect "interstate commerce".)

OleCuss
08-19-2011, 2:53 PM
Far too likely that the SCOTUS will say that there is a tiny thing which the government cannot do - force absolutely every one to buy a particular service.

They'll still be able to force some people in certain categories to buy goods and services - but they won't be able to force everyone to do so.

This will not be much of an advance.

But if Kennedy gets religion it is possible that SCOTUS will say that the Commerce Clause has been stretched beyond all recognition and the process of rolling it back must begin. This is a very low probability event. Better to buy Greek currency than to bet this happens.

mrdd
08-19-2011, 3:10 PM
Under Wickard, even if you dug your own ore, smelted your own steel and cast your own parts etc. you would be affecting Interstate Commerce b/c by making such a gun you would be reducing the demand for such guns by making your own instead of buying one from the stream of Interstate Commerce.

However, one could also argue that the 0% build does not affect interstate commerce because it has unique properties under the law. Buying through normal channels requires the involvement of an FFL, and all the niceties that come with that. So, a 0% build is not equivalent "commercially".

But, it would have to be 0%, because buying an 80% part does affect commerce in the 80% parts.

Wherryj
08-19-2011, 3:17 PM
I'm mainly talking about the federal GFSZ law. I understand that CA has a duplicate law, which I'm not addressing here.

You'd need a SCoTUS ruling that specifically limited the Federal government to ONLY things that affect interstate commerce before you could rely upon this argument.

What you currently have may be the corollary. The Feds are trying to maintain that they have the right to act upon things that affect interstate commerce that some states are challenging. That doesn't specifically limit their rights to ONLY things affecting interstate commerce and certainly doesn't automatically and immediately negate existing laws that may be at odds with such a ruling.

On the other side, would you feel that much better dodging a federal bullet in court, only to get hit by the one fired by the state? You'd still have to worry about the state GFSZ law...

valkylrie
08-19-2011, 4:15 PM
I asked a similar question a couple of days ago...here is the thread and responses I got...while I understand the replies I do not agree with them all, but I'm not about to launch the challenge!

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=467047

OleCuss
08-19-2011, 4:39 PM
Dudes!

You're posting on a forum frequented by people from outside California. That means that anything discussed here could possibly be construed as interstate commerce-related.

I wish that were a ridiculous stretch on the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause. I don't think it really is all that much of a stretch.

Don't go there. Don't try it out even if you have lots of money for lawyers. The odds of your lawyers losing is too durned high. Take the money and instead donate it to CGF, SAF, CRPA, and NRA - you'll get more out of it.

locosway
08-19-2011, 8:48 PM
Under Wickard, even if you dug your own ore, smelted your own steel and cast your own parts etc. you would be affecting Interstate Commerce b/c by making such a gun you would be reducing the demand for such guns by making your own instead of buying one from the stream of Interstate Commerce.

Ok, that just proves that our government has gone way too far. Where do I sign up for the revolution?