Constitutionality of ATF regs

[Gaerek]

Constitutionally speaking, can the Feds regulate manufacture/sales of firearms within a state?

I'm not asking what they do...I know what they do. I'm asking is it even constitutional for them to do so? I can understand (though disagree with) the government's ability to regulate interstate commerce, but it seems that there's nothing anywhere that would give the government the ability to regulate the sales/manufacture of firearms/accessories within a state. To do so would at the very least violate the 10th Amendment (and of course, the 2nd Amendment). Any thoughts on this?

This is more curiosity on my part. I like to say I have a good passing knowledge of the Constitution (and probably more than most people) but from what I know, there'd be a really good case to say that the Fed's can't regulate me buying a gun manufactured in my state.

 

[MTT TL]

According to the most current court rulings yes they can. Even if you make it yourself.

 

[44 AMP]

but from what I know, there'd be a really good case to say that the Fed's can't regulate me buying a gun manufactured in my state.

I'm afraid they can, and they do. The legal authority comes, originally from the Constitution (as all legal authority does), but the accepted definition of what falls under the scope of the commerce clause today is much, much broader than anything the Founders envisioned.

Quite literally the Supreme Court has ruled that anything (and by extension, everything) is covered under the Commerce clause, and the govt can regulate it.

I believe the case used for this ruling was Wickard vs.. (If I'm wrong, one of our resident legal beagles will clarify, and beat me up...)

The case comes from the FDR era, involved wheat. Wheat that was grown, but NOT sold on the market. Seems like a slam dunk, if its not sold, it cannot be in commerce, right?

That's not what the Supreme Court of the day said. Essentially they said that, even though it was not sold, it was in commerce, because the fact that it was NOT sold had an effect on commerce.

Thus the blank check was given to the Fed, to regulate anything, made anywhere, sold or not sold, as part of interstate commerce.

A lot of us don't agree with it, but it is the current law of the land.

 

[Gaerek]

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like if the founders had wanted it to work that way they'd have written it that way. Oh well. It is what it is.

 

[cannonfire]

Didn't Montana pass a law stating something to the effect that any gun manufactured in the state and that stayed in the state, were not regulated by the Feds?

I don't know the status of the law as far as challenges, court rulings, etc. but the op made me think of that

 

[Gaerek]

There were a few states that at least tried to pass legislation like that in the wake of Sandy Hook, my state included. Though it appears, with the current understanding of the commerce clause, they'd be considered unconstitutional.

 

[csmsss]

I think it's safe to say that SCOTUS, should such a case come before it, will scoff at any attempts by various states to exempt any product or service manufactured and sold within their borders from consideration as interstate commerce.

Fact is, by way of Wickard and Raich, there is pretty much no limitation whatsoever on what the federal government can declare as interstate commerce. That being said, it does beg an interesting question - if any human exchange or transaction can be considered interstate commerce, what further purpose does the U.S. Constitution serve? What does it truly protect? I'd argue that the Court's opinions on the interstate commerce clause are so inimicable to the remainder of the Constitution, that it could be considered essentially moot.

 

[FrankenMauser]

Didn't Montana pass a law stating something to the effect that any gun manufactured in the state and that stayed in the state, were not regulated by the Feds?

Utah did (and some other states).

To date, I know of no manufacturer that has had the desire to be the ATF's test case.

 

[Gaerek]

Fact is, by way of Wickard and Raich, there is pretty much no limitation whatsoever on what the federal government can declare as interstate commerce. That being said, it does beg an interesting question - if any human exchange or transaction can be considered interstate commerce, what further purpose does the U.S. Constitution serve? What does it truly protect? I'd argue that the Court's opinions on the interstate commerce clause are so inimicable to the remainder of the Constitution, that it could be considered essentially moot.

That's a really good question. A simple reading of the commerce clause makes what the framers intended with it very clear. The states, being sovereign, have the right to regulate commerce within their own border. The purpose of the clause, it seems, was intended to give the Feds the power to regulate all commerce that extends outside of state boundaries. If this were not the case, the clause would have likely been written differently.

Instead of:

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

It should say something like, The Congress shall have the Power to regulate all commerce that occurs with the United States.

Instead, the frames intentionally got very specific. Among the states, refers to interstate commerce, obviously, but within a state? No power is apparently given.

Of course, SCOTUS and their power to interpret the Constitution, is also a constitutional right. And if they say that commerce among states is the same as commerce within a state, well, that's the way it is.

 

[MTT TL]

And if they say that commerce among states is the same as commerce within a state, well, that's the way it is.

Yep, until someone with some intestinal fortitude steps up to change the law.

 

[Tom Servo]

Yep, until someone with some intestinal fortitude steps up to change the law.

It isn't something as simple as a law change. We either need to amend the Constitution or we need to get the Supreme Court to moderate its stance on the matter.

Neither option is easy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Didn't Montana pass a law stating something to the effect that any gun manufactured in the state and that stayed in the state, were not regulated by the Feds?...

The general topic was discussed here. Montana was one such State.

The Montana law became the subject of litigation and went up to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit (Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013)) affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the suit and ruled that the Montana law upon which plaintiff relied is preempted by federal law, which federal law Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to enact. The Ninth Circuit relied substantially on Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) and United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006).

The plaintiffs have apparently asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. A quick look at Supreme Court's website didn't show that any action has been taken on that petition for certiorari.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like if the founders had wanted it to work that way they'd have written it that way. Oh well. It is what it is.

Technically, it is what the Supreme Court says it is.

 

[mehavey]

And the Supremes have (effectively) said it's whatever the central gov't wants to do --
the epitome of Franklin's prescient worry when responding to Mrs. Powell.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Thanks for the clarification. Seems like if the founders had wanted it to work that way they'd have written it that way. Oh well. It is what it is.

Technically, it is what the Supreme Court says it is.

It could even be argued that the Founders intended that "technical" result. They provided in the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...

Many of the Founders were lawyers. They understood judicial power, how courts and the law worked, the principles of the Common Law and the doctrine of stare decisis. They therefore had reason to understand the mechanism by which an exercise of judicial power in the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution could, and would, shape the meaning and application of the Constitution.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Not being a historian, I wonder when it was exactly that words stopped having definite meaning and if the founders could have foreseen such a thing, assuming it happened long after the COTUS was adopted.

 

[MTT TL]

I wonder when it was exactly that words stopped having definite meaning and if the founders could have foreseen such a thing

Noah first published in 1806. He was considered a radical and a mad man by the leading minds of the day.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Language has always been evolving, and words always had needed to be interpreted by courts in particular contexts. One can read judicial decisions written in the 17th and 18th Centuries and see courts interpreting words of statutes and prior decisions as they try to reach decisions in the cases before them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Noah first published in 1806. He was considered a radical and a mad man by the leading minds of the day.

Apropos of that, I just opened my Oxford English Dictionary at random and found almost two columns defining "exorbitant" with usages back to the 14th Century.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't mean things like variations of "exorbitant". I mean "congress" and "shall make no law" suddenly applies to schools and gym teachers. "Commerce" applies to some guy building something in his basement.

Clearly, "Congress" has a reasonably exact meaning. If I say, "I'm going to visit Congress tomorrow.", no one thinks I'm headed for the local school superintendents office.

"Commerce" might apply to quite a number of things but how does it go from having a number of synonyms to applying equally to it's antonyms?

"Interstate" has a pretty exact definition by any normal standard, yet by application of judicial decision, it no longer, legally, has any real meaning at all.

Those things, I imagine were unforeseen.