Fed judge dismisses states' gun suit

[Apparition]

By MATT GOURAS (AP) – 1 hour ago

HELENA, Mont. — A federal judge in Missoula has dismissed a lawsuit by gun rights advocates and states seeking freedom from federal gun laws, a move that the advocates promised to appeal.

The decision on Wednesday from U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy was expected since his magistrate a month ago recommended tossing out the lawsuit because Congress has the authority to regulate firearms with its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

Molloy sided with the U.S. Department of Justice, which argued Congress' ability to regulate guns and other items through the "commerce clause" of the U.S. Constitution had long ago been decided in courts.

The lawsuit involving Montana, Utah, Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wyoming and West Virginia argued that states should decide which rules, if any, would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made inside their borders.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution assures that the federal government only has those powers that are specifically given to it by the Constitution, the states said.

Gun control advocates who joined in the case welcomed the decision.

"We are pleased that the court rejected this dangerous, misguided and unconstitutional law," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. "It is already far too easy for dangerous people to get deadly weapons. There is no reason for Montana or other states to allow gun sales without the Brady background checks that help keep guns away from criminals."

The issue was launched last year with "firearm freedoms act" laws backed by the Montana Shooting Sports Association first in Montana. That gun group led the court battle.

"We've believed all along that the federal District Court cannot grant the relief we request. We seek to overturn a half-century of bad precedent," Gary Marbut, MSSA president, said in a statement. "Only the U.S. Supreme Court can do that. In that light, the pending dismissal by the District Court means little except that we are now free to move to the next step of the process."

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hX-wisTxWMzVFAvXNcdOwK8EXubgD9IIFV3O0?docId=D9IIFV3O0


Ah, further abuse of the commerce clause which was originally intended to give Congress the power to keep commerce regular between the states, in essence to establish an interstate free trade.

Tyranny wins again, for now.

[Glass]

Should only affect firearms brought into the state. Any firearms made in the state should be exempt under commerce powers.

[madfranks]

A federal judge in Missoula has dismissed a lawsuit by gun rights advocates and states seeking freedom from federal gun laws, a move that the advocates promised to appeal.

Is anyone surprised that federal courts would rule in favor of federal regulation? States need to stop asking the federal gov't for permission to exercise their rights, and simply start exercising them. Let the chips fall where they may.

[madfranks]

Should only affect firearms brought into the state. Any firearms made in the state should be exempt under commerce powers.


Here's how they reason it. Supreme court ruling, Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in the context of World War II, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm — that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat.

Now, let's change the words wheat to firearms and see what it says.


the Court ruled that federal regulations of firearm production could constitutionally be applied to firearms manufactured for use within the borders of one state — that is, firearms manufactured to be sold to citizens exclusively of that state or otherwise limited to the confines of the state. The rationale was that a manufacturer producing "his own firearms" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all firearm manufacturers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of firearms would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if manufacturers limited to one state were allowed to manufacture their own firearms, it would affect the interstate market in firearms.

[Glass]

Should only affect firearms brought into the state. Any firearms made in the state should be exempt under commerce powers.


Here's how they reason it. Supreme court ruling, Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), in the context of World War II, the Court ruled that federal regulations of wheat production could constitutionally be applied to wheat grown for "home consumption" on a farm — that is, wheat grown to be fed to farm animals or otherwise consumed on the farm. The rationale was that a farmer's growing "his own wheat" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all farmers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of wheat would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if farmers were allowed to consume their own wheat, it would affect the interstate market in wheat.

Now, let's change the words wheat to firearms and see what it says.


the Court ruled that federal regulations of firearm production could constitutionally be applied to firearms manufactured for use within the borders of one state — that is, firearms manufactured to be sold to citizens exclusively of that state or otherwise limited to the confines of the state. The rationale was that a manufacturer producing "his own firearms" can have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, because if all firearm manufacturers were to exceed their production quotas, a significant amount of firearms would either not be sold on the market or would be bought from other producers. Hence, in the aggregate, if manufacturers limited to one state were allowed to manufacture their own firearms, it would affect the interstate market in firearms.


Well that's amazing isn't it. There in black and white is the language of the state (FED) run commune. You think you are free but even eating the produce of your own efforts impinges on their claims because you are denying them their commerce.

[hoarder]

Judge Molloy is the most hated Judge in Montana.

[Apparition]

Judge Molloy is the most hated Judge in Montana.

Hmm, perhaps that's why many people recommended that 0bumhole nominate him to replace Justice Stevens after Stevens announced his retirement a few months ago.

[hoarder]

Judge Molloy is the most hated Judge in Montana.

Hmm, perhaps that's why many people recommended that 0bumhole nominate him to replace Justice Stevens after Stevens announced his retirement a few months ago.
Interesting...do you have the names of those making the recommendation?