Eric Holder says Feds Will Ignore State Laws and Enforce Gun Grab

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I like this clause better! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

That is not in the Constitution. What the Constitution actually says:

SECTION 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

[himher 634]

That is not in the Constitution. What the Constitution actually says:

SECTION 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

What you need to do before you plan for Eric Holder to enforce the law is to pass one. That would be a good start.

The supreme court has otherwise and already issued several rulings on the gun issues and has to this time favored individual rights over state or local laws.

Assuming you do get a law passed, then I guess it will be time to decide where and when to pick fights over it. As many states and indeed millions of individuals are already giving Washington the finger over this before a single law is placed on the books it should be quietly noted that it appears to be better to address the crimes that are committed with guns and criminals that commit them with guns rather than pick a fight that neither side can possibly win.

Edited May 4, 2013 by himher

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

pick a fight that neither side can possibly win.

The separatists will lose. History has proven that, over and over again.

[Robby999 1,024]

The separatists will lose. History has proven that, over and over again.

You would have a difficult time now getting King George III to follow that train of thought again!

[Darnell 8,478]

Charles, if'n I'm reading post #1 properly, the author of that tome is claiming Holder is a 'tard.

Ok !

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You would have a difficult time now getting King George III to follow that train of thought again!

When there is an ocean between all the gun nutters and the Mainland US, we will speak again.

[himher 634]

The separatists will lose. History has proven that, over and over again.

Yeah I see that happen all the time. They never lose right? You're still smoking.

The most recent example of separatists 'losing' is generally known as "Arab Spring" and unlike the situation here they didnt start with arms. They won by taking and using their attackers arms.

The authors of the Second Amendment penned otherwise. I believe I'll go with their view. Unlike libs who have never built anything, they actually BUILT the country. Libs can't control a city much less get out where things are grown and built and control that.

Edited May 4, 2013 by himher

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Yeah I see that happen all the time. They never lose right? You're still smoking.

The most recent example of separatists 'losing' is generally known as "Arab Spring" and unlike the situation here they didnt start with arms. They won by taking and using their attackers arms.

So, you are preaching insurgency. That makes you the "attacker", not the rest of law-abiding citizens that prefer not being put at risk by loons packing firearms. Enjoy the time you will spend in Leavenworth.

Edited May 4, 2013 by The Patriot

[himher 634]

So, you are preaching insurgency. That makes you the "attacker", not the rest of law-abiding citizens that prefer not being put at risk by loons packing firearms. Enjoy the time you will spend in Leavenworth.

You're really smoking. Is that all you do?

it appears to be better to address the crimes that are committed with guns and criminals that commit them with guns rather than pick a fight that neither side can possibly win isnt "preaching insurgency".

Your histrionics are entertaining though. Arab Spring was referenced to bunk (slam bunk) your "The separatists always lose" delusion. Though it is a recent reference it certainly isnt the only one.

If following the ideas of the constitution and its writers is "insurgency" now then I guess those who believe that would be the attackers.

Edited May 4, 2013 by himher

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If following the ideas of the constitution and its writers is "insurgency" now then I guess those who believe that would be the attackers.

Why would you talk of such things, unless you were planning to overthrow the legitimate government of the US by violent means? I hope you and your significant other have been disclosing that all along when you where filling out the immigration forms.

Edited May 4, 2013 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Your histrionics are entertaining though. Arab Spring was referenced to bunk (slam bunk) your "The separatists always lose" delusion. Though it is a recent reference it certainly isnt the only one.

What does the "Arab Spring" have to do with what happens in the US?

[himher 634]

Why would you talk of such things, unless you were planning to overthrow the legitimate government of the US by violent means? I hope you and your significant other have been disclosing that all along when you where filling out the immigration forms.

Your smoking has put your imagination into overdrive.

What does the "Arab Spring" have to do with what happens in the US?

It has to do with separatists and losing. Did that fly over your head?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It has to do with separatists and losing. Did that fly over your head?

You had to bring of an example of something that is happening in a third world country because you can't find any case where an insurgency was successful against the legitimate government of the United States by its citizens: Ever.

BTW, where are the separatists in the "Arab Spring" example? You have gone from fail to double fail.

Edited May 4, 2013 by The Patriot

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.cato.org/blog/guns-commerce-clause-way-supreme-court

March 18, 2013 8:57AM

Guns and the Commerce Clause: On the Way to the Supreme Court?

By

Ilya Shapiro

Share

Nearly two years ago, I wrote about an intriguing Commerce Clause case involving the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. To wit, Montana enacted a regulatory regime to cover guns manufactured and kept wholly within state lines that was less restrictive than federal law. The Montana Shooting Sports Association filed a claim for declaratory judgment to ensure that Montanans could enjoy the benefits of this state legislation without threat of federal prosecution. The federal district court ruled against the MSSA.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, Cato joined the Goldwater Institute on an amicus brief, arguing that federal law doesn’t preempt Montana’s ability to exercise its sovereign police powers to facilitate the exercise of individual rights protected by the Second and Ninth Amendments. More specifically, for federal law to trump the MFFA, the government must claim that the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses give it the power to regulate wholly intrastate manufacture, sale, and possession of guns, which is a state-specific market distinct from any related national one.

The lawsuit’s importance is not limited to Montana; a majority of states have either passed or introduced such legislation. The goal here is to reinforce state regulatory authority over commerce that is by definition intrastate, to take back some of the ground occupied by modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Well, after much delay – in part due to the Ninth Circuit’s waiting for Supreme Court instruction on the Commerce Clause in the Obamacare litigation – MSSA v. Holder finally saw oral argument two weeks ago. The Goldwater Institute’s Nick Dranias, who was the principal author of our joint brief, was able to get 10 minutes of argument time and sent me this report afterwards, which I reprint with his permission:

You can listen to the oral argument here. Thanks to Nick for all his efforts in the case on our behalf. We expect a ruling in the next few months.The Montana Firearms Freedom Act came under fire before the Ninth Circuit [March 4]. Appellants Gary Marbut, the Montana Shooting Sports Association, and their attorney Quentin Rhoades advanced the unusual strategy of declaring they should lose under current Supreme Court precedent. Victory would consist of nothing short of overturning the decades-old case law underpinning the federal firearms regulatory regime that conflicts with the Montana Firearms Freedom Act’s declaration that firearms may be freely manufactured and sold within the state primarily from components that originate from the state. The goal was to force a loss in the Ninth Circuit so that they would be able to petition the Supreme Court for certiorari to reconsider and overturn its expansive post-New Deal Commerce Clause precedent, including Gonzales vs. Raich and the infamous Wickard vs. Filburn.

Appellants’ argument was quite a gamble; and an admirable one if only for its Western State gutsiness. But it is debatable whether the gamble was a wise one. The panel consisting of two conservative jurists and one liberal jurist—a rare composition for the Ninth Circuit—looked perplexed when one judge asked Attorney Rhoades almost rhetorically if the hearing were merely a way station on to the Supreme Court.

The Goldwater Institute and the Cato Institute took a different approach as amici curiae. In an unusual move, the Ninth Circuit allowed the amici 10 minutes of additional time to argue in support of the constitutionality of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. We seized the opportunity.

Our argument opened with the observation that the case presented a question of first impression and one that should prevail under current Supreme Court precedent—especially in view of the Court’s emphasis in NFIB vs. Sebelius that the “letter and spirit” of the Constitution limits claims of implied power under the Commerce Clause, as confirmed by the Necessary and Proper Clause. Based on Federalist Nos. 28, 31, 33 and 51, we contended that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were meant to work in tandem to confirm that the states may exercise their reserved powers to secure constitutional liberty against federal overreach. In other words, the Founders fully intended for the people to resist federal usurpation through their state representatives passing laws such as the Montana Firearms Freedom Act to protect freedoms guaranteed by the Second and Ninth Amendments. Consequently, the “letter and spirit” of the Constitution prohibited preemption of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act to the very extent that such preemption was premised on implied power under the Commerce Clause.

We also argued that any exercise of implied power under the Commerce Clause should be subjected to heightened judicial scrutiny. Relying on Fourteenth Amendment enforcement clause precedent, such as Horne vs. Flores, we contended that the scrutiny should ask whether the claimed exercise of power is proportionate to and congruent with regulating a problem involving actual interstate commerce to ensure that the exercise of power did not exceed the principal Commerce Clause power to which it was supposed to be merely incidental. At the very least, the case should be allowed to proceed through discovery to assess whether the manufacturing of firearms under the Montana Firearms Freedom Act would, in fact, have a trivial or substantial effect on the illegal trafficking of guns across interstate lines.

In response, the ever-ironically-named Department of Justice ably presented the standard defense offered by the federal government to just about any constitutional challenge—the argument that Appellants did not have standing to bring their case. Eventually, however, the DOJ urged the Court to rule on the merits and affirm the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that comprehensive federal firearms regulations should preempt the Montana Firearms Freedom Act for the same reasons that comprehensive federal drug regulations preempted medical marijuana laws in Raich.

Although dancing away from the question implies a nimbleness that was absent from its argument, the federal government pointedly never grappled with our key argument that Congress’ implied power under the Commerce Clause cannot override state laws that exert powers reserved under the 10^th Amendment in order to protect constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Second and Ninth Amendments. Nor did the DOJ address the need for heightened scrutiny to ensure that any claim of implied power under the Commerce Clause truly is incidental to the main power of regulating actual interstate commerce. Hopefully, the unusual majority-conservative panel will address these issues—even if the Ninth Circuit does prove to be a way station to the Supreme Court after all.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

“The likelihood of victory is low,” said Trevor Burrus, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16161-how-states-are-making-it-a-felony-to-enforce-federal-gun-laws