Defensive Carry banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,761 Posts
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.

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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
732 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,182 Posts
They are banning a product that almost of the other states allow, which is to me hindering interstate commerce.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,794 Posts
So pot grown in California can't be banned in Georgia?
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top