Has anybody thought about the Commerce Clause to protect gun rights?

This is a discussion on Has anybody thought about the Commerce Clause to protect gun rights? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I went to Commerce clause | LII / Legal Information Institute and they, Cornell Law, stated "The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both ...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree7Likes
  • 2 Post By rich62
  • 4 Post By peckman28
  • 1 Post By rich62

Thread: Has anybody thought about the Commerce Clause to protect gun rights?

  1. #1
    New Member Array rich62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5

    Has anybody thought about the Commerce Clause to protect gun rights?

    I went to Commerce clause | LII / Legal Information Institute and they, Cornell Law, stated "The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states’ powers to regulate. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power."

    Does not banning high capacity magazine, handguns not approved by the state of California, prohibition of lead ammo, etc burdens interstate commerce as company's cannot sell their products in certain states?
    StormRhydr and Eagleks like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,079
    The far more relevant sections of the Constitution are Amendments 2 and 14. The Interstate Commerce Clause refers to just that...interstate commerce. It has already been abused and stretch far beyond what it really authorizes. We don't need it being subjected to further mischief.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array StormRhydr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Music City, USA
    Posts
    2,975
    I think you just might be onto something. Especially with THIS court.

    Law School Joke: Why can the Coca Cola truck park wherever it likes? Because it moves in the stream of commerce.

    Quote Originally Posted by rich62 View Post
    I went to Commerce clause | LII / Legal Information Institute and they, Cornell Law, stated "The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states’ powers to regulate. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power."

    Does not banning high capacity magazine, handguns not approved by the state of California, prohibition of lead ammo, etc burdens interstate commerce as company's cannot sell their products in certain states?

  5. #4
    Ex Member Array IndianaSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    733
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    The far more relevant sections of the Constitution are Amendments 2 and 14. The Interstate Commerce Clause refers to just that...interstate commerce. It has already been abused and stretch far beyond what it really authorizes. We don't need it being subjected to further mischief.
    Exactly. The ICC was never meant to have anything to do with "social interactions" or related to gun rights in any way. Let's stick with the language that specifically applies.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,653
    They are banning a product that almost of the other states allow, which is to me hindering interstate commerce.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  7. #6
    Member Array Voice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    322
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    They are banning a product that almost of the other states allow, which is to me hindering interstate commerce.
    The commerce clause was intended to prevent scenarios where one state interfered with the ability of two other states to engage in trade (eg: punitive tarrifs on goods shipped from one state, to another, *through* the offending state). It has been abused and stretched beyond recognition already. Let's not encourage further abuses.

  8. #7
    New Member Array rich62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    5
    To all who say this is not what the commerce clause is about and so forth I whole heartily agree. However, the people who wish to end firearm ownership would use this and any other misrepresentation possible to accomplish their task. I feel that it is time to start playing by our opponents rules and use their tactics against them. Fighting fair only ends up in a lost on the street and we are fighting in the anti-gunners in the gutter.
    ccw9mm likes this.

  9. #8
    Member Array blanco64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    431
    IANAL, but I believe I've some states using it to their benefit by saying firearms manufactured and sold within their state are not subject to federal laws. Not sure how that's working out.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array PEF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,549
    So pot grown in California can't be banned in Georgia?
    -PEF, a Framer with a Steelie...
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    1. All guns are always loaded.
    2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
    3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
    4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states

Click on a term to search for related topics.