Constitutional Show Down?

[Full-Auto]

I'm posting this in GD because the implications of these laws are far reaching and certainly extend past the hot button issue of firearms in general.  If this continues, the Constitutional crisis it kindles can be very far reaching.

I know some of you have read about recent laws passed in Wyoming, Tennessee and Montana basically telling the federal government it has no right to regulate firearms manufactured within their respective states.

These laws are called "Firearms Freedom Acts" and as you can see from this site they are gaining some traction with many states considering similar legislation currently.

Wyoming's law goes further than the other two states' laws in that it actually imposes a penalty on federal agents attempting to enforce federal firearms laws within their state.  This penalty is a felony that carries a 2,000 fine and 1 year prison sentence.

The BATFE (federal gun enforcement branch) has issued a warning to Tennessee gun dealers.

While the Tennessee and Montana laws have no teeth, Wyoming's does.  

Will the ATF attempt to prosecute Wyoming gun dealers who refuse to do background checks, fill out federal paperwork on gun buyers or ignore restrictions on barrel length, "assault weapons", etc.?  Will Wyoming in fact arrest federal agents or attempt to?  How will federal agents respond to state authorities arresting them using force?  Will tempers flare and gun fire erupt?  Will they go peacefully and will the fed's attempt to force their release?

It seems pretty serious, and Wyoming is dead serious about this.  Other states are moving to enact similar laws... will this force the feds to do something drastic for fear of losing their control?

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's a mistake to push this, the jurisprudence of the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses that would be involved in an ultimate SCOTUS decision is all on the side of the Feds.

[Full-Auto]

It's a mistake to push this, the jurisprudence of the Supremacy and Commerce Clauses that would be involved in an ultimate SCOTUS decision is all on the side of the Feds.

How so?

The Fed's only have interstate commerce to stand on.  Clearly they can't claim interstate commerce on firearms manufactured within the respective states which stay in those states.

The feds tried a similar argument with the "gun free zones" which were ultimately thrown out by the courts.  They claimed that carrying a firearm near a school was a matter of interstate commerce.  Their argument in court?  That since kids will eventually grow up and engage in interstate commerce, the law should stand.  The courts didn't agree... and it proves the feds clearly abuse the clause as much as they possibly can and certainly well out of scope of the spirit of the clause.

So, I don't see how the courts will side with them, unless Obama gets enough appointments to make a difference.

[Pat]

has the BATF made overt actions in Wyoming recently?

[DumbAss Tanker]

How so?

The Fed's only have interstate commerce to stand on.

It's more than enough, if you know anything about the case law on the Commerce Clause, you might want to read up on that instead of just saying what you think it should mean (Not that I disagree with you philosophically on that, but that's worth approximately nothing thanks to a line of cases interpreting the Commerce Clause starting back in the New Deal era).   The Supremacy comes in to nullify any attempt to penalize Fed officers acting under color of Federal law.

[Full-Auto]

The Supremacy comes in to nullify any attempt to penalize Fed officers acting under color of Federal law.

Ahh ha, there's where the rub is.

The issue of penalties applied to federal agents is ancillary to the issue.  Tennessee and Montana have no penalties, they simply state federal gun laws do not apply per the commerce clause - and I doubt you'll find a court that agrees that it does.  If the feds could invoke the commerce clause freely without fear of the courts, then the courts wouldn't have thrown out the "gun free zones" non-sense.

While the courts will likely side with the feds on the issue of arresting and punishing federal agents, that's not what the issue is here.

[BlueStateSaint]

Ahh ha, there's where the rub is.

The issue of penalties applied to federal agents is ancillary to the issue.  Tennessee and Montana have no penalties, they simply state federal gun laws do not apply per the commerce clause - and I doubt you'll find a court that agrees that it does.  If the feds could invoke the commerce clause freely without fear of the courts, then the courts wouldn't have thrown out the "gun free zones" non-sense.

While the courts will likely side with the feds on the issue of arresting and punishing federal agents, that's not what the issue is here.

What if, and this is directed more at DAT, one of the Federal agents is killed while attempting to enforce this law, in Wyoming?

[The Village Idiot]

Look some dude was sued by the feds for growing his own corn, under the ICC. Totally ridiculous.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Ahh ha, there's where the rub is.

The issue of penalties applied to federal agents is ancillary to the issue.  Tennessee and Montana have no penalties, they simply state federal gun laws do not apply per the commerce clause - and I doubt you'll find a court that agrees that it does.  If the feds could invoke the commerce clause freely without fear of the courts, then the courts wouldn't have thrown out the "gun free zones" non-sense.

While the courts will likely side with the feds on the issue of arresting and punishing federal agents, that's not what the issue is here.

No, the penalties are a completely ancillary issue. 

The Commerce Clause does not mean what you or anyone else of normal reading abilities would think it means, thanks to the SCOTUS decisions starting back in the New Deal.  SCOTUS would have to drastically re-interpret their existing Commerce Clause case law to get this to come out the way you think it will, and I'm sure they're just dying to do that over issues like roll-your-own fully automatic weapons and no FBI background checks, it's such an attractive issue after all, right up there with saving the whales.  Seriously, you're not well-informed about Commerce Clause SCOTUS precedent and you need to read up on this before possibly getting yourself or someone you've been talking to in real trouble on this topic.

The kind of case FGL is referring to would include Darby, which is one of the New Deal cases the Feds WON, subjecting farmers to Government crop restrictions for growing crops which were intended to be consumed on their own farms.  SCOTUS has pulled back from that extreme position on the Commerce Clause a wee bit since then, but rally most of the easing actually came from Federal regulation itself slacking off, rather than because of any fundamental re-think about overreaching in the past on the part of the Federal courts.

And BSS, the shooter would very probably be prosecuted in Federal court, there is no Federal murder statute but there is a Federal law against assaulting or killing a Federal agent, and with aggravating factors the penalty is in the same ballpark as murder.  Whether self-defense would have any chance as a defense is pretty fact-dependent, but once the Federal agent identifies himself as such you would clearly be in the wrong to continue to escalate force instead of just surrendering the weapon and fighting it out in court later (Shoes nobody in their right mind would want to be in, since it would be heard in Federal court, not State).  Basically to have a decent chance you would have to prove the Fed who got shot was exceeding all normal bounds even under Federal law.  In Federal court, your chances are slim on avoiding prison for the shooting if you count on making a State-law based argument that you were innocent, just relying on the alleged-but-legally-debatable lawfulness of whatever underlying activity of yours the Fed was pursuing.

And as far Federal employees executing Federal duties go, I'd also add the common law of trespass is laughably less to rely upon than even State statutory law, which is why all the warlike posturing about census workers here is so remarkably stupid and childish.
 

[Full-Auto]

DAT,

Can you find any websites that supports your position on this issue?  I don't doubt that you understand the legalities better than I do, I don't claim to be a lawyer.  But everything I've read being reported thus far seems to indicate that Wyoming has the legal right to do this under the action called "nullification".  Sure, the feds can push the issue and the courts can decide against them, but if 21 other states pass similar legislation, as they look like they may do, that certainly changes things. Let's not mention that if enough states band together on this, they can force an amendment to the Constitution.  We're far from that of course... but if this catches on like the CCW laws did... who knows.

[The Village Idiot]

Growing wheat in your backyard garden for personal consumption is illegal. Based on the Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn, "Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity."

"Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.

According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" www.oyez.com

By enacting the legislation Congress set forth controls to protect commodity wheat pricing. The Supreme Court (in 1942) upheld the laws agreeing that allowing Filburn to produce wheat for private use did indeed present a threat to the supply be reducing demand in the open market.

Growing a small plot of wheat in your backyard, while not in itself a threat to overall supply, could be regarded as a dangerous practice should it become commonplace. If, for instance, millions of Americans suddenly began planting wheat for home use, the Federal Government would have the power to step in and eliminate or control its cultivation.

[DumbAss Tanker]

DAT,

Can you find any websites that supports your position on this issue?  I don't doubt that you understand the legalities better than I do, I don't claim to be a lawyer.  But everything I've read being reported thus far seems to indicate that Wyoming has the legal right to do this under the action called "nullification".  Sure, the feds can push the issue and the courts can decide against them, but if 21 other states pass similar legislation, as they look like they may do, that certainly changes things. Let's not mention that if enough states band together on this, they can force an amendment to the Constitution.  We're far from that of course... but if this catches on like the CCW laws did... who knows.

Commerce clause law is not really that dependent on the issue, beyond the entry question about whether the nature of the item concerned and the activity related to it are part of interstate flow of commerce, which will normally be sufficient to allow the Feds to invoke the Commerce Clause.  Like the New Deal cases, the legal question here will be whether these State schemes cause a disruption of the Federal scheme to regulate the interstate commerce of the item, which will be a matter of markets, economics, and effects that have nothing to do with the inherent characteristics of the item, though the fact that guns are inherently dangerous instrumentalities will weigh in favor of overarching Federal powers in court.   

I spent one semester in law school having to listen to a former law clerk of a maximum-strength Liberal SCOTUS Justice preach about why this sweeping and nearly-all-inclusive interpretation of the Commerce Clause is a wonderful thing (Puke), all I can suggest is you try looking at a real Constitutional law textbook instead of relying on websites written by advocates.  I'm probably not going to convince you that there's more to this than you think, so all I can do is encourage you not to be on the leading edge of those 'Early adopters' that want to try it out...most especially not if you have an FFL, a C&R, or the basic machines and knowledge necessary to turn a parts kit into a shooter (After all, any parts kit undoubtedly came into your state via interstate commerce).

Nullification hasn't had a very good history since about 1860.  If by 'websites' you meant places like the 10th Amendment Center, they're just some advocate's very-biased opinion (On all sorts of issues including dope, guns, taxation generally, NCLB, etc.), and they do use that lingo.  However, I don't believe you'll find any real Federal cases that provide substantive support for the idea.  Guess which one actually matters in court?