“AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.”
The ATF is actually citing the supremacy clause in regards to commerce which is backed by the constitution as it is a federal statute, you can find the supremacy clause in the U.S. constitution in Article 6 paragraph 2 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html it states:
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The bottom line is I may not like many of the federal laws affecting commerce or even gun laws, but laws created by congress to be federal law do supersede state law. To use the 10th amendment is not applicable as Article 6 of the constitution enumerates the power of federal law over the state. If Montana had truly created law which has no federal law contradiction, then the 10th amendment would come in to force.
The commerce clause is only for “between states”. The Montana law you’re discussing is only pertaining to guns within Montana, not those that leave it’s borders. So the ATF is wrong and this is going to get very interesting I think.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land
Section 8 of the Constitution provides the only powers that Congress has. There are many more powers of Congress, but this is the one statist always bring up.
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
This one power of the federal government from the very beginning has created the most tyranny, including the establishment of the first U.S. central bank Justice Marshal outlined this power of Congress and thus sided with Congress in their desire to create the central bank. This was the main if not sole reason why Jefferson quit being Sec. of State. This power given to Congress has provided their tyranny from the get-go. How this clause “To make all laws…” reads though is all powers vested by this Constitution, meaning those powers made explicit. The powers that are read word for word in the Constitution. The Constitution has no words “central bank” in the Constitution, thus, federal government has no power of making one. For the federal government to regulate and make laws that over-ride Amendment Two, Nine, and Ten is contradictory.
Notice what Amendment Nine states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Right of self-defense, thus, any means (the means enumerated in Amendment Two are a right, a natural right since arms can be property) to meet this rightful end is not to be trumped by a federal law. The federal law outlined by the ATF is therefore UnConstitutional. But, as I’ve said, federalists always pull out the “necessary and proper” clause that I quoted above and they say this gives the federal government the ability to do whatever they want - and they have noted it many, many times to create their tyranny over the centuries. So they contradict the Constitution in this case, Two, Nine, and thus Ten, and also violate property rights at the same time. If the ATF goes in and makes arrests, then they violate liberty. If anybody dies due to this violation by the federal government, then the federal government violates the right of life (person) as well.
If you read Federalist #33, by Hamilton and Federalist #44 by Madison, it becomes clear that what is mean by the Supremacy clause, and what is not meant. What was not intended was to create a national government.
Now you are getting somewhere. Go all the way. The ATF is actually evil. It isn’t just prohibited by law, but it is an agency that lives off of and terrorizes the public over what they choose to do privately with their property. If it wasn’t government, we would call them terrorists or thugs. But because they have a badge, we dignify what they do.
Did you read what I said at the bottom, the last sentence?
I stated that because the commerce clause can affect intrastate commerece where it could affect interstate. That is why I said it has to be tested similar to raich vs gonzales case.
Some parts of the law but not all come into question. Google “nullification revisited:intrastate firearm manufacturing”
I thought you were talking about the supremacy clause. No matter, not a single one of the founders (even Hamilton) had a view of the interstate commerce clause that it is any way remotely similar to the modern view of it.
When the founders sought to regulate interstate commerce, they were trying to prevent interstate barriers to trade, which the King had imposed (as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence) They were not, in any sense, trying to suggest that they had the right to, for example, tell a farmer how much wheat and corn he could grow. This wasn’t even debated between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists, or amongst themselves. This is one of the rare Constitutional cases wherein literally 100% of the original documentary evidence falls on one side, that side being the loosest, weakest view of the interstate commerce clause.
This is commonly known amongst people who study this stuff.
First, article 6 does not give the Federal government the right to make any law they want. The commerce clause has been interpreted in an opportunistic way to expand Federal powers beyond what the framers intended.
Second, the bill of rights supersedes the original text of the constitution where they conflict.
Also: the ATF doesn’t have the right to even exist, constitutionally speaking, so clearly it doesn’t have the right to meddle in the laws of an individual state.