Legal Battles, Business Questions

Earlier this week, the NSSF released polling data showing that eight in ten Americans are anything but gun averse. In fact, they’re downright supportive of the individual rights interpretation of the United States Constitution.

On the heels of that good news, word that a lower federal court has ruled that Washington, D.C.’s “revised” handgun registration rules passed their bar of scrutiny -even in light of the Heller Decision. That, despite the fact that DC’s new rules still make it difficult-if not impossible- to jump through sufficient hoops to license a handgun.

The Second Amendment is anything but a decided issue, especially since we’re waiting for the end of the current Supreme Court term for a ruling in the McDonald versus Chicago case – chapter two of the battle to lockdown the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment.

That issue isn’t dying down- at least not anytime soon, but it may not be where the biggest rub with Congress is waiting. The biggest issue that seems to be showing up on more radar screens is the “Commerce Clause” found in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.

In the Congressional interpretation, they have virtually limitless power to regulate anything that even begins to impact interstate commerce. It is one of the underlying planks in their theory of governance.

Increasingly, however, they’re finding that when it comes to firearms, the states have a differing viewpoint. That’s the idea that a product made in a state, sold in a state and residing and used solely in that state is not subject to interstate commerce regulations – nor subject to other federal jurisdictions.

In other words, if it’s stamped “Made in Alabama”, sold only in Alabama, and used only in Alabama, it’s Alabama’s business, not Washington’s.

That’s based on the Tenth Amendment and the people’s unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment.

Already, Montana, Tennessee, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Utah have passed what are being called Firearms Freedom Bills.

Yesterday, the Idaho Firearms Freedom Act passed the state’s Senate. It’s now headed to the desk of Idaho governor Butch Otter for his expected signature, bringing the total number of states with Firearms Freedom Acts to six.

On Tuesday, Arizona’s legislature passed a similar measure, with Governor Jan Brewer indicating she will “likely” sign it into law.

Is this a growing trend? Seems so, especially when state and local governments are seeing almost daily encroachment into their turf by a federal government that seems dead-set on regulating everything, despite the clear indications that average citizens, regardless of race, creed or political affiliation, are sick of their constant expansion.

Being one of the first to say the government needs to go one a diet, trim spending and get the heck out of all our lives, this movement still causes me some concern.

Not because it’s unreasonable; because it is ultimately reasonable.

The test of reasonableness is not administered much when it comes to the federal government. And rule not interpreted the way they’d like, tends to encourage them to overcompensate in another area.

Fortunately, when it comes to firearms, they not had a lot of luck lately.

That’s not to say these measures are going unchallenged. In Montana, the originating state of the growing firearms freedom legislation movement, the federal government has challenged the law -on a variety of grounds. A deadline for briefs on that challenge is only a few days away, and the federal government is facing a growing list of supporters of the act.

According to Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association and quiet engine behind the legislation, there are other states lining up to approve clones of the original Montana legislation.

As always, we’ll keep you posted.

–Jim Shepherd
www.shootingwire.com