The basis for federal jurisdiction in this and so many other matters is the commerce clause of the Constitution, which allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 3, in reciting the powers granted to the federal government, lists: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes[.]” Upon those four words (that I have bolded) the feds have built an empire reaching to infinity.
It is that overreaching that is supposed to be blocked by the Tenth Amendment which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The Second Amendment was supposed to secure the right to keep and bear arms. Note that it does not say “Congress shall make no law…” as so many do. It says “the right…shall not be infringed. That means not by anyone, not any government, not the state, not the city, not the guy who runs a video rental store.
|
|
It is this right that Montana seeks to preserve by having passed a law saying any gun, gun accessory or ammunition made in the state and intended for use there is exempt from federal regulation. The purchase or possession of a firearm (including automatic weapons), silencer or ammunition would not be subject to any federal regulation. No records need be kept, no background investigation is needed, no waiting periods apply.
Ooooh. That little thrill you feel is freedom.
The Montana law is effective Oct. 1. Similar legislation is under varying degrees of consideration by Alaska, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina and Texas.
Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told me there are at least 20 states working on such legislation. But not Arizona. Arizona has a provision in its Constitution similar to that in the U.S. Constitution. It says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”
The impetus for the Montana legislation might have been the proposed new federal regulation known as the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. The bill would impose criminal penalties up to 10 years in prison for:
1. Transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions.
2. A licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act.
3. Failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours
4. Failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days.
5. Keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.
Most Americans do not want to live under that level of regulation and the Constitution says they don’t have to.
The right protected is the right to “keep and bear” arms. The right to keep arms has been widely, although not universally, acknowledged. But the right to bear arms has quietly been ignored. This is the right to carry arms. It doesn’t say openly or concealed. And being a right, it cannot be licensed. You should not have to get permission from some government employee to exercise a right. It is clearly designated as a right under the Constitution. It cannot properly be considered a privilege.
And this may surprise you. The word “gun” does not appear anywhere in the article. Not even the word “weapons” appears. It protects the right to keep and bear arms. Arms is a broader term than weapons and a much broader term than guns. Theoretically, you should be able to walk down the street carrying a nuclear bomb and not be detained. But at least it should be recognized that there is no exception for automatic weapons or guns that look scary.
Arizona should join the other states that are asserting their sovereignty and demand the federal government respect and live within the Constitution.
Contact Lionel Waxman at territorial@waxmanmedia.com or visit his website: www.newflashpoint.com.
Comments
BambiB wrote on Sep 20, 2009 11:13 AM:
The Fed "authority" over firearms stems chiefly from the case of Wickard v. Filburn, which extended the authority of Congress over interstate commerce to include anything that "affects" interstate commerce - no matter how slight the impact might be. Thus, it was ruled that Wickard could not grow more than the government-authorized quantity of wheat (on his own land, for his own use!) because it meant he would not have to buy wheat, and that would affect the price of wheat.
Were the members of the Supreme Court insane?
Apparently not - but they were cowardly. This decision was in line with the wishes of Roosevelt who had threatened to "pack" the Court by adding six new justices (total of 15) who WOULD vote to support his regime. Fearing a total loss of control, the existing nine justices capitulated and issued one of the most anti-freedom decisions in the history of the Court.
The new Firearms Freedom laws not only directly oppose Federal authority in the area of gun control, they also directly attack the underlying case of Wickard. If Wickard were to be reversed, as much as 75% of all Federal control over intrastate matter might be eliminated as unconstitutional.
We should expect strong opposition by the Federal Government to these new laws, since the Feds are unlikely to want to give up their stranglehold on our freedoms. Tyrants never cede power willingly. "
DonL wrote on Sep 19, 2009 7:11 PM:
Dave K. wrote on Sep 19, 2009 1:01 PM:
This is not correct. Similar legislation was floated as a possible striker last session, but did not make it in the mad rush to hear bills in the closing days. It will likely resurface in the coming regular session.
If you want info on what's happening here in AZ, you might want to contact those of us on the ground here ...
azcdl.org "
RonC wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:25 AM:
lee mcgee wrote on Sep 12, 2009 5:40 AM:
A ruse often used by federal supremacists (including Scotus Justices) to negate and/or circumvent unalienable rights is to claim that all rights have limits. Statists loudly proclaim that it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (inferring that even the freedom of speech has limits). NOT!
However, shouting "Fire!" in such a circumstance is an ABUSE of the freedom of speech. Punishing the ABUSE does not limit the right. A corollary would be: Prostitution is illegal, however, one cannot arrest women because God provided them with the equipment necessary and they might decide to engage in that illegal profession.
" In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout 'fire' in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority fo forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim." - Tom McClintock (CA state senate) "
TEEBONE wrote on Sep 11, 2009 9:54 PM:
I vehemently disagree with this surrender.
I know that this is what SCOTUS has held in prececent. It is not correct.
The central government can only regulate issues that affect the free flow of interstate commerce, i.e., intervene or deflect trade wars between the states.
It does NOT give the central government license to regulate the manufacture, sale, or use of products not involved in such disputes, only the power to eliminate adverse interstate trade practices that would harm the overall economy, or the economy of a particular state to the advantage of another.
This extrapolation of federal power is blatantly unconstitutional. It is based on ever-expanding activist precedent, which cannot legitimately usurp the orniginal intent. "
Rick wrote on Sep 11, 2009 8:20 PM:
Live Free wrote on Sep 11, 2009 3:37 PM:
So sad. "