Posted: 3/10/2009 12:13:53 PM EDT
|
Just a little brain farting right now, but I was thinking about Montana's recent move to push for state sovereignty as a way of getting around any new firearms laws that the libs might try passing. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, therefore they are able to pass new firearms laws in large part because of interstate commerce. So Montana, if I'm not mistaken, is trying to say that if the firearms are kept in state, then the federal government has no jurisdiction to regulate what their people can and cannot own in terms of firearms.
My thought is, what about doing this with Machine guns. If a system could be set up within a state (assuming the state government doesn't declare it illegal) that would ensure that a particular firearm wouldn't leave the state, could that state allow the civilian sale and ownership of post 86 class 3 firearms, regardless of federal law? your thoughts? |
| It is a lot more complicated than just proving that the items didn't leave the state after they were manufactured. IMO, the Courts would look at whether materials used in building the machine gun were brought into the state and, if materials are being brought in, say that this constitutes interstate commerce allowing them to regulate the machine guns that are produced from those parts. I don't really think that anything Montana does will be sufficient to get around the ICC unless somehow all the steps from raw materials to the finished product are wholly contained in the state. |
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.