Firearms freedom act - a state's rights test case

[Liberty97045]

The over reach of federal power is justified under the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.

It started back in 1942 with a bad Supreme court ruling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
and now it has been extended to the point where the Federal Government barely even pretends to need an excuse.

The good news is that a growing number of states are joining together to challenge the usurpation of their rights. Obviously they are all a bunch of extremists.

http://firearmsfreedomact.com/

And here is a bill in Idaho along a similar vein

Bill Text: ID S1099 | 2013 | Regular Session | Introduced | LegiScan

Who says resistance is futile?

Read More

 

[Liberty97045]

And the latest

Firearms Freedom Act » Ninth Circuit Rules in Firearms Freedom Act Case ? 8/23/13

 

[Stomper]

 

[U201491]

And the latest

Firearms Freedom Act » Ninth Circuit Rules in Firearms Freedom Act Case ? 8/23/13

Asking the feds to ignore and fix the feds. Like having a skunk watch over the eggs.

_______________________________
At my age I shoot forward a lot better than I run backward.
Rearward movement is only used for a forward Advantage and better sight alignment !

 

[hermannr]

While I agree with the law suit, I disagree that things started downhill with Wickard V Filburn.

The overreach of the national government began with the passage of the 16A and 17A. The national government no longer had to beg the states for revenue, and the Senators were no longer directly accountable to the state legislature.

 

[U201491]

Great :-/ Now I have to go make popcorn......
That is an evil icon..

 

[Stevenav]

And when the Supreme court refuses to hear it or rules in its own favor... then what?

 

[Misterbill]

Sadly, I don't think Filburn is going anywhere. I dearly WISH it would go away, but I don't see it. If you've been paying attention to the court over the years the one place where the liberals and "conservatives" on the court are in full agreement is that the Federal government has virtually unlimited jurisdiction anytime it says so, period.

Only way to get around this is to get actual constitutionalists onto the court, which means first controlling the Senate, then the WH.

GL with that given current trends. We could have had Michelle Bachman in the WH, and she would have appointed statist judges who differ from Sotomayor and Kagan only in their favorite KIND of Statism.

I think that some states are going to pass laws like Missouri's recent one enacting penalties for fed employees enforcing unconstitutional laws AND THEN ENFORCING those penalties, by putting the people in question in jail and DARING the feds to do something about it.

That's the most likely prospect for some sanity returning. But it's gonna get really ugly in the meantime.

 

[U201491]

It just might be time for real ugly since nothing else has worked !?

_______________________________
At my age I shoot forward a lot better than I run backward.
Rearward movement is only used for a forward Advantage and better sight alignment !

 

[BAMCIS]

While I agree with the law suit, I disagree that things started downhill with Wickard V Filburn.

The overreach of the national government began with the passage of the 16A and 17A. The national government no longer had to beg the states for revenue, and the Senators were no longer directly accountable to the state legislature.

This is so true. The Filburn case sure hurried things along.

Unfortunately however, because of Filburn this lawsuit has about the same chance as a snowball's in Hell.

 

[enjr4]

The 17th amendment was the real beginning of the end. Once the 17th was ratified the senate became a club of folk beholding to no one and only looking out for themselves. Wickard V Filburn is one of the results.

Prior to the 17th senators were hired by the states (appointed by the state government) to represent the states in DC. The after the 17th​, the election of Senators by popular vote, no one in Federal Government represented the states and until it revoked, the Feds will continue to gain power over the states.

In a state like California the election of two people by about 30 million people cannot possibly be anything but a popularity contest put on by special interests. It was the beginning of the end of our Constitutional government.

Ed

 

[Kid@Heart]

The 17th amendment was the real beginning of the end. Once the 17th was ratified the senate became a club of folk beholding to no one and only looking out for themselves. Wickard V Filburn is one of the results.

Prior to the 17th senators were hired by the states (appointed by the state government) to represent the states in DC. The after the 17th​, the election of Senators by popular vote, no one in Federal Government represented the states and until it revoked, the Feds will continue to gain power over the states.

In a state like California the election of two people by about 30 million people cannot possibly be anything but a popularity contest put on by special interests. It was the beginning of the end of our Constitutional government.

Ed

Really??

I thought the "States Rights" debate was settled by Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.

 

[Liberty97045]

I agree that liberty has been on a downhill slide long before Filburn but I was referring to Filburn as the beginning of expansion using the commerce clause

 

[ArgyleAdams]

Really??

I thought the "States Rights" debate was settled by Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.

Seriously? Any chance I could get you to explain how Lincoln "settled" the States Rights debate?

 

[Kid@Heart]

Seriously? Any chance I could get you to explain how Lincoln "settled" the States Rights debate?

What do you believe the Civil War was about?

 

[ArgyleAdams]

Well, I did ask first, but here goes...

I think it was about a number of states violating (among other things) the 5th Amendment (included below, most pertinent clause in bold).

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The violation of items specifically enumerated in the US Constitution is not a right of the states (see: the 10th Amendment).

"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."

I am legitimately interested in hearing your argument, though.

 

[Stomper]

Ahem.... We're WAITING!

 

[Liberty97045]

Well, at the risk of being flamed :angry: allow me to offer this. This lengthy paper by a legal scholar delves into the right of states to secede from the union.

http://www.beaufortobserver.net/pdf/9981.112112/SECESSION_-11-12-12.pdf

Here is an excerpt:

"The issue of slavery aside, the Southern States dissolved their association with the Northern States because the association had become hostile and had become destructive of the very reasons they joined together in the first place. They seceded for the same right of self-determination and self-government that our earlier Americans asserted for our independence from Great Britain.In Lincoln's mind, he was preserving the Union, but the reality is that he declared war – a bloody, costly war – on a people who peacefully, legally, and perhaps rightfully severed relations with a government that had become hostile to them and their interests, and no longer served them equally or fairly."

 

[Father of four]

And when the Supreme court refuses to hear it or rules in its own favor... then what?

The people will continue to just roll over and do what they are told to do. The people have been trained to not stand up for their rights, just to obey. If the judges, the state or the fed say so then it has to be right, right?

 

[Kid@Heart]

Well, I did ask first, but here goes...

I think it was about a number of states violating (among other things) the 5th Amendment (included below, most pertinent clause in bold).

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The violation of items specifically enumerated in the US Constitution is not a right of the states (see: the 10th Amendment).

"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."

I am legitimately interested in hearing your argument, though.

So, I will try to explain what I meant without stepping on anyone's toes.

Although I think the Constitution is a phenomenal document and should be interpreted as intended by the folks who wrote it, you really are making a mistake by not framing the information you posted in the context of the 1860's.

The section of the 5th Amendment you highlighted was not the reason for the Civil War. There was "Settled Case Law" and Supreme Court decisions upholding the rights of the southern states to own slaves. There were a lot of folks throughout the country that did not agree, but it was legal and "due process" had been followed. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't come until well after the war started.

The southern states believed they were being bullied by a Federal Government that had no right to tell them what to do. (10th Amendment) They had tried to work within the "system" to get the industrialized, densely populated northern states to recognize the self-governance rights of the south, to no avail.

It all came to a head with Lincoln's election.

The south tried to pull out of the Unites States, believing it was their right.

Lincoln settled the issue by crushing the southern states, destroying their economy, burning their cities and killing most of their able bodied men.

The Union,(or as we call it now, the Federal Government), took preeminence over the states at the end of the war and never looked back.





Stomper...

I understand you were waiting. Some of us need a LOT of beauty rest and don't post on forums at midnight. Some of us also work and don't post a lot on forums during working hours.

Liberty97045:
Thanks for posting the information.

And,

Since this is a Firearms Forum, I have no intention of debating this any further.