"9th Circuit rules against Montana law bucking federal gun rules"

[Paladin]

More at:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/th-circuit-rules-against-montana-law-bucking-federal-gun-rules/article_b8432896-0c3b-11e3-8536-0019bb2963f4.html

Although this is a Montana case, since it is being argued in CA9, it will affect us too.

[naeco81]

Thanks for the post Paladin.

[mjmagee67]

I hope they rule the same way on pot! After all its the same situation. Failure to respect federal law.

[RickD427]

I hope they rule the same way on pot! After all its the same situation. Failure to respect federal law.

Sir,

They already did. That was the whole point of Gonzales v. Raich.

[SilverTauron]

Behold:this is how the concept of states' rights dies.

Next,the Feds will say CCW permits should be regulated by DC,since permit holders could ***potentially*** cross a state border. Did I miss the repeal of the 10th Amendment ?

[AmericanRedoubt]

Behold:this is how the concept of states' rights dies.

Next,the Feds will say CCW permits should be regulated by DC,since permit holders could ***potentially*** cross a state border. Did I miss the repeal of the 10th Amendment ?

Thank you SilverTauron for mentioning that -- right on. Please visit the Tenth Amendment Center online for more info.

----

NRA Life Member; also member of GunOwners.org of America, NRAila.org, Second Amendment Foundation SAF.org, CalGunsFoundation.org, CRPA.org, GunOwnersCA.com, NSSF.org, JPFO.org, Permies.com, thesurvivalpodcast.com Member Support Brigade, Wolf Pack member at thesurvivalistblog.net, Permaculture Homesteader, Minister. https://www.youtube.com/user/WesternRedoubt, https://twitter.com/AmericaRedoubt, https://plus.google.com/u/0/100074989588861962432, https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ameri...43830355647369

[mjmagee67]

Sir,

They already did. That was the whole point of Gonzales v. Raich.

Yep and what are they doing about it, ignoring the ruling. When politics get in the way, the Justice System is a paper tiger.

[Al Norris]

Gonzales v. Raich, decided June 6, 2005.

The above, from the Raich syllabus was indicative of yet another expansion of federal power, via the Commerce Clause. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion of the majority, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, joined. Justice Scalia wrote a separate, but concurring opinion.

Two dissents were written. Justice O'Conner wrote a dissent, in which C.J. Rehnquist and Thomas joined. Justice Thomas wrote a separate Dissent.

Remembering that this was about the medical use of marijuana, it posed a huge question on the extent of federal power and the Commerce Clause.

What is interesting is that on January 17, a decision about another case came out. Gonzales v. Oregon. This case was about using using regulated (by the CSA) drugs by physicians in assisted suicides. Here the US AG claimed the authority (via that same Commerce Clause) to deny the use of said drugs, in assisting a suicide by physicians.

[Crom]

Great, informative post Al. Thanks.

[ewarmour]

This is a great case - getting rid of the Supremes jurisprudence regarding the commerce clause would be a huge step towards freedom, not only for gun rights.

More info here:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/9th-circuit-blasts-montana-buckaroo-rifle-plan/

[Baconator]

This is a great case - getting rid of the Supremes jurisprudence regarding the commerce clause would be a huge step towards freedom, not only for gun rights.

More info here:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/9th-circu...oo-rifle-plan/

That's the way I saw this. Seeing the way that the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare and it being a tax and not allowed by the commerce clause, I think they left themselves room to get rid of the overreach of the commerce clause...at least that's what I hope.

[ewarmour]

...

[RickD427]

Behold:this is how the concept of states' rights dies.

Next,the Feds will say CCW permits should be regulated by DC,since permit holders could ***potentially*** cross a state border. Did I miss the repeal of the 10th Amendment ?

You didn't miss a repeal of the 10th Amendment. Repealing the amendment would require considerable effort. The Gonzales case very effectively undermined the amendment to the point that repealing it isn't necessary.

Why do things the hard way?

I would encourage you to make your CCW argument a little differently. It really doesn't matter if CCW holders cross a state border. Many federal laws were written to incorporate elements of "crossing a state line" in order to clearly trigger the commerce clause. Under Gonzales, that's not necessary anymore. It's only necessary to show some minimal effect on commerce. I read one article where the author did a good job of showing how my morning shower affected interstate commerce (the power to heat the water came from an interstate power grid, water is limited commodity. By using the water, I've denied its use to others affecting commerce. See where this is going?)

You could easily show that CCW holders affect interstate commerce because the currency used to purchase the CCW weapons has been removed from circulation. You don't even gotta get near a state line.

Justice Thomas wrote a really outstanding dissent to Gonzales. It's worth a close read.

[lavey29]

I find it disgusting that Obama and Holder can selectively enforce or not enforce federal laws at their whim but when a state challenges something that they believe to be unconstitutional then the libby 9th court jumps right in to say stop it.

[sholling]

You didn't miss a repeal of the 10th Amendment. Repealing the amendment would require considerable effort.

The decision to bring a 10th Amendment federal jurisdiction challenge via a marijuana case was an incredibly stupid one. First it ignored the statist-rightwing of the court's deeply ingrained prejudice against pot, and it ignored the statist-leftwing's unwillingness to trust the judgement of what they see as the great unwashed and befuddled masses that voted to legalize medical marijuana. To the Progressives on the court all wisdom can only flow from the very highest levels of government, and therefore the final say on everything and anything must reside in DC.

A states rights gun-freedom case has a better chance of being used by the conservatives on the court as a tool to undo some of the damage that Wickard v. Filburn did to the US Constitution, but it's far-far-far from a sure thing. In my layman's opinion it'll take an agriculture case such as a price support "takings" case as an intermediate step before the court will go that far out on a public relations limb and protect states rights to trump federal regulation of gun manufacturing.

That's the way I saw this. Seeing the way that the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare and it being a tax and not allowed by the commerce clause, I think they left themselves room to get rid of the overreach of the commerce clause...at least that's what I hope.

See above. There is a school of thought that Roberts would like to start dismantling the damage done by Wickard v Filburn and the decisions that have flowed from that travesty, but I'm not sure that he has the goodies to do it through a gun case.

I find it disgusting that Obama and Holder can selectively enforce or not enforce federal laws at their whim but when a state challenges something that they believe to be unconstitutional then the libby 9th court jumps right in to say stop it.

It's likely going to take states ignoring the court and trucking federal agents directly to prisons to make the point that they are serious. Whether or not the governors have the goodies to just do it is the $64,000 question. IMO it's unlikely to happen unless a new Feinstein plan federal AWB somehow happens, but a new federal AWB just might be enough.