From Where Does Congress Derive the Authority to Regulate Firearms

[JM44-40]

Good Afternoon:

Found this article and thought it raises some very interesting issues--interesting read. Of course, the obvious answer to this question from people like Feinstein and Schumer would be the "Commerce Clause" but, the second page of this article addresses that fairly well.

This is a quote from the second page of the article -- "How the commerce power has been transformed is a long story" -- well, if you're interested in the "long story" start with reading "Wickard vs Filburn." That's where it all started.

Most of you probably already know that the "Commerce Clause" was very seldom used until the landmark case of "Wickard vs Filburn" which was only decided after Franklin Roosevelt had time to pack the Supreme Court. I believe the year was 1942. It must be remembered this is the clause used by the government to get involved in almost every aspect of our lives.

The founders had no such intention.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary...ld-ask-whether-Congress-has-power-to-regulate

 

[Stan Upchurch]

Remember the Bill of Rights was not passed with the Constitution. It was passed ten years later. So what the founders intention was or was not had changed by the time of the Bill of Rights. On a side note the author of the Con stitution was also an author a few years prior to the Constitution for the Episcopal Church in America. some of the thought from that constitution bled into our own National Constitution. As the author was a churchman.

 

[Stan Upchurch]

I might also remind you that we had a govenment prior to the Constitution for ten years which was called The Articles of Confederation.

 

[JM44-40]

Remember the Bill of Rights was not passed with the Constitution. It was passed ten years later. So what the founders intention was or was not had changed by the time of the Bill of Rights. On a side note the author of the Con stitution was also an author a few years prior to the Constitution for the Episcopal Church in America. some of the thought from that constitution bled into our own National Constitution. As the author was a churchman.

Yes, but today I believe you'll find that Congress will claim to derive its authority from the "Commerce Clause." The point I'm trying to make is their justification for doing this is illegitimate.

The Commerce Clause, that's being abused in my opinion, is in Section 1, Article 8, not the Bill or Rights.

Some may cite court cases that try to legitimize this approach, but I would submit the court has been wrong all along on the Commerce Clause. The court has been wrong before -- see "Plessy vs Ferguson." That case was later overturned as it should have been. You can't continue to stack wrong upon wrong and then claim it's right. No logic there...

Any authority for the federal regulation of ammunition would have to come under the claim of Commerce Clause applicability, or so they would say. This is why some states are passing legislation that exempts from regulation firearms manufactured in, and stay in, that particular state -- this is to get out from under the abuses of the Commerce Clause.

In the long term, correcting the abuse of the Commerce Clause would go a long way in fixing many of our ills -- in my humble opinion. Will it ever happen; I don't think so?

 

[Stan Upchurch]

Makes sense.

 

[Belthos]

http://www.enotes.com/wickard-v-filburn-reference/wickard-v-filburn

This helps to explain where the federal government's use of the commerce clause became corrupted.

A farmer was sued by the government for planting more wheat than the law allowed, he claimed the wheat was never going to leave his farm and never be sold, it would be used only to feed his own animals. The government said that was unfair as it meant it would hurt other farmers because he would no longer be forced to buy feed from them.

The story is more complicated and involves the executive branch threatening the Supreme court and replaced judges that didn't agree with it with ones that did, even threatening to double the size of the supreme court by up to six more judges until FDR got his way because the "new deal" packages were being ruled unconstitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

In a nutshell the commerce clause allows the federal government regulatory power over matters of trade between states.
They cracked that nutshell and used the jaws of life to open the nut so wide that they interpreted it to mean they had absolute power over anything that could AFFECT commerce.

Abusing the chaos theory whereby everything in the universe affects everything else for example.

In south Africa a butterfly sneezes, the expanding ripple of atmospheric disturbances eventually results in a hurricane hitting north Carolina.

The government claims that EVERYTHING AFFECTS interstate trade even if you aren't selling anything to anyone so they have absolute authority to legislate anything.

Belthos

 

[farmerbyron]

http://www.enotes.com/wickard-v-filburn-reference/wickard-v-filburn

This helps to explain where the federal government's use of the commerce clause became corrupted.

A farmer was sued by the government for planting more wheat than the law allowed, he claimed the wheat was never going to leave his farm and never be sold, it would be used only to feed his own animals. The government said that was unfair as it meant it would hurt other farmers because he would no longer be forced to buy feed from them.

The story is more complicated and involves the executive branch threatening the Supreme court and replaced judges that didn't agree with it with ones that did, even threatening to double the size of the supreme court by up to six more judges until FDR got his way because the "new deal" packages were being ruled unconstitutional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

In a nutshell the commerce clause allows the federal government regulatory power over matters of trade between states.
They cracked that nutshell and used the jaws of life to open the nut so wide that they interpreted it to mean they had absolute power over anything that could AFFECT commerce.

Abusing the chaos theory whereby everything in the universe affects everything else for example.

In south Africa a butterfly sneezes, the expanding ripple of atmospheric disturbances eventually results in a hurricane hitting north Carolina.

The government claims that EVERYTHING AFFECTS interstate trade even if you aren't selling anything to anyone so they have absolute authority to legislate anything.

Belthos

It's a shame that FDR is revered as a god by many people. He is painted as some sort of savior of the depression and WWII. The reality is that he was as close to a tyrannical dictator as we have ever had and we can trace much of our current problems of govt. overreach to his policies and views.

The man should be taught about as a threat to our republic but is instead regarded as a hero by our history books.

 

[tweetr]

I agree that the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) is indeed the power claimed to empower federal regulation of firearms. This is, of course, utterly specious. Whatever anyone's interpretation of "To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States, . . ." even amplified by "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, . . ." may be, - -

The power to regulate commerce among the several states obviously and self-evidently cannot extend to those matters explicitly forbidden by the Bill of Rights! And those laws considered by Congress to be "necessary and proper" still obviously and self-evidently cannot exceed the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution!

I argue further that the power to regulate commerce among the several states was not intended to prevent commerce among the states, but indeed to protect commerce among the states! That is, to prevent one state from restricting commerce to or from another state. Using the Commerce Clause to prevent commerce (e.g. in restricting the sale and transportation of firearms across state lines) is, in my opinion, backward and dead wrong.

 

[JM44-40]

The power to regulate commerce among the several states obviously and self-evidently cannot extend to those matters explicitly forbidden by the Bill of Rights! And those laws considered by Congress to be "necessary and proper" still obviously and self-evidently cannot exceed the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution!

I argue further that the power to regulate commerce among the several states was not intended to prevent commerce among the states, but indeed to protect commerce among the states! That is, to prevent one state from restricting commerce to or from another state. Using the Commerce Clause to prevent commerce (e.g. in restricting the sale and transportation of firearms across state lines) is, in my opinion, backward and dead wrong.

Exactly!

I would further contend that even if you accepted that the Commerce Clause is applicable, which I don't as stated in my original post, when that firearm reaches its destination - say it's made in Georgia and purchased in Oklahoma - the Commerce Clause applicability would cease and any sale or transfer or usage of that firearm would fall outside of Congress' power for regulation of any sort.

Just like with Obamacare, the benefactors of any gun control legislation will be the "Legal Industry" -- millions of dollars in lawsuits and years of litigation.

 

[tweetr]

I would further contend that even if you accepted that the Commerce Clause is applicable, which I don't as stated in my original post, when that firearm reaches its destination - say it's made in Georgia and purchased in Oklahoma - the Commerce Clause applicability would cease and any sale or transfer or usage of that firearm would fall outside of Congress' power for regulation of any sort.

I agree completely. The interstate commerce clause inarguably has been distorted beyond recognition, even inverted in its intent. Even in its currently inflated form, however, regulation of commerce among the several states must cease the instant the commerce is no longer among the several states! In other words, the Constitutional power to regulate commerce exists only for that part of the commerce that crosses state lines. Before the moment the commerce leaves a sovereign state, and after the moment the commerce enters a sovereign state, the federal regulation must cease. The Supreme Court has completely abdicated its responsibility to protect the several states and the people from expansion of federal power beyond those limited powers granted to it by the several states and the people.