TexasCHLforum.com

Wow! What a fascinating thread! Thank you all for your responses. Good points, all of them!

This issue is obviously going much deeper than simply a State regulating the manufacture & sale of firearms within its State boundary. This is a thread worth watching.

UpTheIrons wrote:If you have 15-20 states (or more) who have passed nullification, and they are all pushing back on the same point (Filburn or related commerce-clause precedent), then the court cannot brush it off as a minor thing, but have to take it seriously.

Of course, that wouldn't prevent the court from saying "It's not our job to make law, Wickard v Filburn stands and if you want to change it, that's what Congress is for."

chartreuse wrote:

UpTheIrons wrote:If you have 15-20 states (or more) who have passed nullification, and they are all pushing back on the same point (Filburn or related commerce-clause precedent), then the court cannot brush it off as a minor thing, but have to take it seriously.

Of course, that wouldn't prevent the court from saying "It's not our job to make law, Wickard v Filburn stands and if you want to change it, that's what Congress is for."

This is true. I was just passing on what I've heard. I can also say unequivocally that I am not a constitutional or legislative scholar, so I'm interested to see how this plays out as much as everyone else. And I'm not overly optimistic either, but I can dream, right?

chartreuse wrote:Of course, that wouldn't prevent the court from saying "It's not our job to make law, Wickard v Filburn stands and if you want to change it, that's what Congress is for."

They made law when they decided Wickard. What they really hate to do is admit that previous courts made bad decisions.

chabouk wrote:

chartreuse wrote:Of course, that wouldn't prevent the court from saying "It's not our job to make law, Wickard v Filburn stands and if you want to change it, that's what Congress is for."

They made law when they decided Wickard. What they really hate to do is admit that previous courts made bad decisions.

That's no lie.

These nullification laws seems to be a direct assertion of the 10th amendment, specifically of state sovereignty, designed to engage the federal government through the courts. I think the rammifications of giving the 10th more teeth will have a monumental impact on the federal-state government dynamic. I'm guessing that nullification of federal firearms laws on intra-state business was probably the easiest thing to test, and would establish a precedent for future cases down the line, should the states prevail.

I was wondering earlier about how in sync state and federal politicians are on states' rights issues. It's easy to imagine state and local representatives thumbing their noses at the federal government, so to speak, and working to expand state control of state affairs, but when federal representatives get sucked into D.C. hubris, how eager would they be to weaken their hold on their power over the states? I ask because if the states fail here, then it would fall on federal representatives to go about it through congress to legislate the individual sovereignty of the states back into the constitution.

You know, I've been disheartened by the state of affairs in these United States, moves like this give me hope. We may yet restore a constitutional republic.

Unfortunately I am afraid the commerce clause on gun manufacturing may not be a saving grace, due to the componants to manufacture.

You need steel for the gun - Texas does have a couple of nice steel plants but both Nucor and the old Chaparel plant use a lot of recycled autos to make their steel they came into the state via interstate commerce for the most part.

You need plastics - Texas has lots of plants making plastics and polymers, but some of thoses componants arrive through interstate commerce.

You need energy - Texas may be the only state that could clear this hurdle as the state is not dependant on interstate connection of it's power grid, natural gas, and petroleum needs.

Seems like a long shot at best, everyone is so intertwined at all levels and the power hungry idiots in DC will not relinquish their hold on power freely to the states. The very same states that relinquished that power by sucking their share of the FREE federal money to build roads, schools, flood control projects. All to keep from having to put their necks on the line by figuring out HOW to PAY for this stuff without putting their own little necks on the tax chopping block.

sjfcontrol wrote:I've seen this stuff mentioned before. I just wonder how they are going to prevent the movement of these "special" arms and ammunition across state lines. Once purchased, what keeps them in-state? Are we going to have to have "export inspection stations" along all the state borders? Somehow it doesn't seem workable.
.

Same ways they have now, if caught then there is trouble. Same as with tobacco, alcohol, etc. I am sure there will be a simple call to the mfr and verify the serial if there is an issue or question. Nothing is stopping me from driving to Chicago or NYC with my Calico M950 loaded and under the seat. Never will be an issue unless I make it an issue by getting searched or using it. Obey the limits and other driving laws and no search is likely.

rm9792 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:I've seen this stuff mentioned before. I just wonder how they are going to prevent the movement of these "special" arms and ammunition across state lines. Once purchased, what keeps them in-state? Are we going to have to have "export inspection stations" along all the state borders? Somehow it doesn't seem workable.
.

Same ways they have now, if caught then there is trouble. Same as with tobacco, alcohol, etc. I am sure there will be a simple call to the mfr and verify the serial if there is an issue or question. Nothing is stopping me from driving to Chicago or NYC with my Calico M950 loaded and under the seat. Never will be an issue unless I make it an issue by getting searched or using it. Obey the limits and other driving laws and no search is likely.

Hmm, I wasn't thinking so much about traveling out of the state, then back again, but of people moving out of the state and taking their guns with them. Are you saying that the problem would exist only with the individual that removes the gun from the state? That there would be no repercussions with the state itself or the manufacturer?

When my Dad died in Florida, and I had to bring the gun safe and collection back, I checked with the ATF and they informed me it was strictly for commerce that was regulated, not the transport or relocation of privately owned arms. Our rental trailer was even checked by state police (produce check IIRC) and he said what was in the safe, he just shrugged when I told him it was about 40 guns.

chartreuse wrote:Of course, that wouldn't prevent the court from saying "It's not our job to make law, Wickard v Filburn stands and if you want to change it, that's what Congress is for."

That could encourage Americans to start playing out scenes inspired by Unintended Consequences. If they want it to stop, they can start following the Constitution.

rm9792 wrote:Same ways they have now, if caught then there is trouble. Same as with tobacco, alcohol, etc. I am sure there will be a simple call to the mfr and verify the serial if there is an issue or question.

If the manufacturer only sells in state wouldn't they also be exempt under Oklahoma law?

Because these manufacturers are going to have to be strictly in state and unlicensed, or engage in commerce between states and have a manufacturing FFL. I don't see the BATmen allowing any FFL to ignore federal law and keep their license.

There is some interesting information about this on the web. There are several states that have either already adopted like legislation, or are in the process...Texas included.

Check out these links...
http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog ... eedom-acts

Texas HB1863
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81 ... 01863I.htm
Status from 2009 session...
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... ill=HB1863

I'm curious if this will be re-introduced for the 2011 session.

5thGenTexan wrote:You need steel for the gun - Texas does have a couple of nice steel plants but both Nucor and the old Chaparel plant use a lot of recycled autos to make their steel they came into the state via interstate commerce for the most part.

They have legitimate power to regulate interstate commerce in steel. They have no legitimate power to regulate the steel after it crosses the state border.

found this on the link above:

http://www.votervoice.net/Core.aspx?AID ... &SiteID=-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

it has a letter that will send to the appropriate Representatives when you fill out your info.