State Sovereignty and Free Firearms Acts

[ifanyonecan]

Being new to this board, I was lurking back through the threads in this forum. I found a few talking about proposals and passages of laws in some states that declare them free of federal gun regulations because of the 10th Amendment.

So as I figure, this doesn't just apply to the matters I saw discussed in those threads, but it would also mean I could theoretically machine an automatic firearm (not modify an existing one or use parts to build one, I mean make a new one) and sell it, all without having the licenses for manufacture of firearms, manufacture of ATF firearms, possession of ATF firearms, and sale of ATF firearms. I would ideally be exempt from federal law because this whole process doesn't involve interstate commerce. To really cover my bases, I could manufacture it only from metals, etc. that were made in Texas, so it really doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce. This would also need to take place in a state without its own laws about manufacture, possession, and sale of automatic weapons.

I understand that this is in no way realistic, since many lawmakers' toilet paper (read: the Constitution) is rarely upheld in the areas of gun rights. This is simply something I thought may be interesting to discuss.

[HankB]

But by making something entirely in Texas, you would reduce the demand for items made out of state. Reduced demand for out of state items would affect the price for out of state items, affecting interstate commerce.

So by not participating in interstate commerce, you'd be affecting interstate commerce, and hence, you'd be participating in interstate commerce.

And the Feds would claim juridiction, just like they did in the '40s when they stopped a guy from growing his own grain to feed his own livestock.

(It only sounds insane because . . . well . . . it is.)

[joe817]

And the Feds would claim juridiction, just like they did in the '40s when they stopped a guy from growing his own grain to feed his own livestock.

Good grief! Did that really happen? That's about the only way an independent rancher can break even, let alone make a living!

[Mike1951]

And the Feds would claim juridiction, just like they did in the '40s when they stopped a guy from growing his own grain to feed his own livestock.

Good grief! Did that really happen? That's about the only way an independent rancher can break even, let alone make a living!

He grew more than was allotted with no intent to sell any, just for his own use for food and fodder.

IIRC, they ruled that interstate commerce was affected because he didn't purchase what he normally would have in the marketplace.

[cbr600]

deleted

[Sewer_Ice]

I actually think we might see a sort of revolution (maybe not armed) to get the power BACK to the states, and not just because of gun rights.
California is legalizing marijuana, this is in violation of the 1970 controlled substances act. Just as manufacturing/selling firearms without ATF approval is against the National Firearms act. I believe it was Montana (or one of the Dakotas) that passed a law saying a gun manufactured in their state will not require a background check... there is another state thinking of this as well (New Hampshire?). With states both liberal and conservatives CHALLENGING federal power that IS NOT GIVEN TO THEM under the constitution, eventually the federal government (Supreme court) will have to make a ruling. Fact of the matter is they don't have authority, and a judicial ruling affirming that would allow for states to do all sorts of things. That or the ruling would be that federal authority s ABSOLUTE, and face ANOTHER civil war/Succession.

CA has been fighting (and possibly won) to get the DEA to stay the heck out of their medical marijuana business, (they can seize property being LEASED for a medical marijuana dispenseries from the OWNER). If you attempted this, you would have to fight to keep the ATF out and use the statutes that could have possibly been set by California fighting against another Federal Agency- The DEA.

Scary to think that California is fighting for something that gun owners can use to their advantage!

[JJVP]

Being new to this board, I was lurking back through the threads in this forum. I found a few talking about proposals and passages of laws in some states that declare them free of federal gun regulations because of the 10th Amendment.

So as I figure, this doesn't just apply to the matters I saw discussed in those threads, but it would also mean I could theoretically machine an automatic firearm (not modify an existing one or use parts to build one, I mean make a new one) and sell it, all without having the licenses for manufacture of firearms, manufacture of ATF firearms, possession of ATF firearms, and sale of ATF firearms. I would ideally be exempt from federal law because this whole process doesn't involve interstate commerce. To really cover my bases, I could manufacture it only from metals, etc. that were made in Texas, so it really doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce. This would also need to take place in a state without its own laws about manufacture, possession, and sale of automatic weapons.

I understand that this is in no way realistic, since many lawmakers' toilet paper (read: the Constitution) is rarely upheld in the areas of gun rights. This is simply something I thought may be interesting to discuss.

A number of states have passed FFA laws. Here is an article about them:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123419" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Might have to be fought all the way to SC. The interstate commerce law has, IMHO, been perversed to give the feds power over the states. About time we started fighting back.

[casingpoint]

Don't be surprised if Obama and the Dumbocrats try to use the Commerce Clause to force mandatory universal health insurance upon the American public.

[marksiwel]

Don't be surprised if Obama and the Dumbocrats try to use the Commerce Clause to force mandatory universal health insurance upon the American public.

For the sake of argument, they probably can. Since U.S. v. Lopez, the test for whether or not a law is valid under interstate commerce is:

Any thing that is 1) the object of interstate commerce, 2) an instrumentality of interstate commerce, or 3) substantially affects interstate commerce and is economic in nature can be regulated by the federal government using the Commerce Clause power.

Health Insurance is the object of interstate commerce because insurance companies sell health insurance to people in more than one state. Even if the company is completely intrastate, it substantially affects interstate commerce (due to the interstate health care market) and is economic in nature (money exchanged for services). Hospitals and health care providers are similarly objects of interstate commerce as every one of them ships things in from out of state and takes insurance from companies headquartered out of state.

[HankB]

Hmmm . . . what if a state passed a law saying that all adult US citizens residing in a state and of sound mind and no criminal record were eligible to volunteer to be members of the State Militia, said state militia members being expected to obtain at reasonable cost and maintain in good working order personal firearms that were functionally equivalent to those issued to US military personnel, including FA capability? Wouldn't this tend to create headaches for those enforcing the 1986 machinegun freeze?

[ifanyonecan]

Hmmm . . . what if a state passed a law saying that all adult US citizens residing in a state and of sound mind and no criminal record were eligible to volunteer to be members of the State Militia, said state militia members being expected to obtain at reasonable cost and maintain in good working order personal firearms that were functionally equivalent to those issued to US military personnel, including FA capability? Wouldn't this tend to create headaches for those enforcing the 1986 machinegun freeze?

I wonder how this would differ from other paramilitary civilian organizations, such as Xe Services (Blackwater). They have FA firearms, and, despite my researching, I haven't been able to find anything regarding whether they pay the $200 tax or if they have an exemption.

Unfortunately, gun-rights advocates don't have quite as much swing as American-hired mercenaries, which is somewhat sad.

[chabouk]

I wonder how this would differ from other paramilitary civilian organizations, such as Xe Services (Blackwater). They have FA firearms, and, despite my researching, I haven't been able to find anything regarding whether they pay the $200 tax or if they have an exemption.

They were prosecuted for arms violations last year, for illegally exporting and transferring NFA arms.

[ifanyonecan]

I wonder how this would differ from other paramilitary civilian organizations, such as Xe Services (Blackwater). They have FA firearms, and, despite my researching, I haven't been able to find anything regarding whether they pay the $200 tax or if they have an exemption.

They were prosecuted for arms violations last year, for illegally exporting and transferring NFA arms.

I was aware of that, but that has to do with international transportation. What is the status of their possession in (North?) Carolina at their training facilities?

[HankB]

Hmmm . . . what if a state passed a law saying that all adult US citizens residing in a state and of sound mind and no criminal record were eligible to volunteer to be members of the State Militia, said state militia members being expected to obtain at reasonable cost and maintain in good working order personal firearms that were functionally equivalent to those issued to US military personnel, including FA capability? Wouldn't this tend to create headaches for those enforcing the 1986 machinegun freeze?

I wonder how this would differ from other paramilitary civilian organizations, such as Xe Services (Blackwater).

AFAIK, Xe/Blackwater is a private company. I was thinking that if a state - a unit of government - established explicitly that individuals could be considered "militia" members and expected to have FA firearms, that Fed.Gov would have some difficulty in preventing it. (IANAL, so if I'm overlooking something obvious, I'd welcome correction from someone with legal competence.)

[Bart]

I was thinking that if a state - a unit of government - established explicitly that individuals could be considered "militia" members and expected to have FA firearms, that Fed.Gov would have some difficulty in preventing it. (IANAL, so if I'm overlooking something obvious, I'd welcome correction from someone with legal competence.)

There's already a Fed definition of the militia and the Feds prosecute people who meet their definition for having militia firearms. If they ignore their own laws (and the constitution) then why would they care about state laws?