Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses a very innovative argument in the matter of Williams v. United States, yet another challenge to 18 USC Sec. 922(g)(1) the ban on felons possessing firearms. Today, we take a look at a crafty argument based upon the Commerce Clause and how, if accepted, could undo dozens of Federal gun laws. [Watch]
Good. That said, a review of text, history, and tradition of the Commerce Clause at the time of ratification would not have supported the expansion and usurpation of unintended powers to allow the feds to get their hooks into citizen disaramament, treasonous subsequent stare decisis saying they could notwithstanding.
And raising Tenth Amendment arguments isn’t exactly “new”:
Also, it’s helpful to keep in mind that the MFFA and its clones are really a states’ rights exercise, a challenge to federal commerce clause power on Tenth Amendment and other grounds. It is more about federal power than firearms.
[Via Jess]
The FDR administration, in a policy challenged unsuccessfully in a SCOTUS case known as “Wickard v Filburn”, essentially bent the Founders’ Commerce Clause language into a shape that would have had said Founders barfing their lunch into the weeds.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
The FDR administration, in a policy challenged unsuccessfully in a SCOTUS case known as “Wickard v Filburn”, essentially bent the Founders’ Commerce Clause language into a shape that would have had said Founders barfing their lunch into the weeds.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
I haven’t been able to find a citation, but if memory serves, in a fairly recent case, (US v Printz?) one of the Justices asked the Solicitor General of The United States if it was the government’s position that Congress had the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate every facet of life in the USA. According to witnesses in the room, the Justices were taken aback when he answered in the affirmative.
Note that some observers believe that the Roberts court has begun paring back what Congress believes is the extent of their reach under the Commerce Clause.