Gunco Forums banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This came up in another thread as a tangent, and I finally was able to find the NY Times article I'd been yattering about. But I think it's an issue that may deserve its own thread.

A theme near and dear to Custer's heart had been rolling back the Feds use of the commerce clause of the Constitution to expand Federal power. That commerce clause is, among many many other things, the foundation for Federal meddling in gun control. It's also the foundation for the Feds meddling with medicinal marijuana, and the case at hand is a medicinal marijuana case that challenges the Feds authority to over-ride States' rights.

"...Some leading conservatives want the court to overturn Wickard and replace it with a pair of decisions from the 1800's that one brief filed in the case said would return "Commerce Clause jurisprudence to its settled limits prior to the New Deal." That would be a bold move, but the court has already been heading down this path..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
They have painted themselves into a corner. I don't know how they can get out of it.

Of course, no matter how they rule it will be moot for gunowners if the 2nd is not deemed incorporated against the states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Custer said:
...Of course, no matter how they rule it will be moot for gunowners if the 2nd is not deemed incorporated against the states.
That incorporation against the states, that's from interpretation of the 14th Amendment, right? Seems to me that's a separate issue, and that incorporation is global - i.e. it applies to the entire BOR. Izzat right?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Yep, the 14th.

It is a separate issue but without it a fundemental BOR could go by the wayside in the states even if you slow the Fed power under the commerce clause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
I agree with you - without that expansion of the interpretation of "equal protection" to mean that the BOR applies to each state and not just to the federal government, a state could pass a law that simply outlaws private firearm ownership.

But I had thought you were OK with each state having the right to do so if they so chose, that the possible hazard to gun rights was offset by the importance of states' rights.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
I prefer the states to the Feds in most respects but I also think we need some stronger protection against the states than the Founders envisioned. I think they would be as shocked at the power and reach of state government as they would be of the Feds.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top