Comments on: Commerce, Jurisdiction and Firearms Freedom Acts

By: kldimond

kldimond — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 17:02:51 +0000

The whole U.S. Constitution as we know it today was brought on by the states' inability to trade amicably: predatory tariffs and other practices which had been used by England and had provoked the Revolutionary War in the first place.

The way I understand the Interstate Commerce Clause, putting an end to this kind of divisive practice was its point–not anything more or less.

Thus, I think the article, while interesting and on point in a lot of ways, still misses the extent of abuse of the clause. What states should be saying is that they will not honor abuses of the clause. I agree that the FFAs do not go far enough, but neither does Jeff Matthews' commentary.

Incidentally, it was the same sort of abuses that led to the Civil War. It takes governments a long time to learn the lessons of history, it would appear.

By: Guest

Guest — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 14:50:39 +0000

I agree with your sentiment, although I'm happy to see ANYTHING done to raise the issue so I support the FFA's in that sense.

I contacted my local state rep., (a Republican lawyer from a very small town who says he favors small government,etc.,) about several state issues where the state is following the fed's lead and trying to bail out this and that industry that is hurting during the recession.

I told him that he claims to favor 'small' government and yet everything he supports or proposes is just another government "solution" to interfere in the free market and allocate more and more of the people's tax dollars as he and his cronies see fit.

He tried to dodge the issues by claiming these were just bills he was 'reporting on' until I pointed out that he bragged about co-sponsoring all of them in an earlier newsletter and gave a rousing supportive floor speech before voting in favor of one particularly socialistic, redistribution scheme for 'green' jobs. I didn't hear back after that! What could he say? "Sorry, I lied and you caught me!" Not likely.

He just doesn't get it. Like GW Bush and his ilk, he talks the party line but it's really all about HIM. He's in love with power and just can't help himself. Almost all these people (except, apparently, Ron Paul and his ilk) see THEMSELVES as the answer to every problem because they think they are especially anointed by the Creator or something.

It seems to be human nature and I'm sorry to say there doesn't seem to be a way to avoid it. Sadly, we get the government we deserve. When people like Ron Paul tell Americans the truth, they call him a crack pot and dismiss him and his idea to just follow the Constitution. He's called a 'radical.' If it wasn't so serious, you'd just laugh at the insane stupidity.

It is very telling that ideas like 'term limits' even have to be raised. What is the point? "Save us from ourselves!" "If the law doesn't stop us, we'll vote for these losers repeatedly." In a rational world, there is no need for term limits and it's really silly when you think about it.

I'm too old to keep fighting these issues. My wife and I have finally decided to move to a different country. Since there is no place on the planet that has a proper functioning government (IMHO), we're moving to a country where the weather is nice and the government is too inept to effectively run our lives, even though I'm sure they'd love to.

By: theunknownamerican

theunknownamerican — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 04:58:13 +0000

I've read somewhere that the whole point was to prevent states from regulating their own interstate commerce so the federal government could usurp those powers for the purpose of creating a uniform trade policy among the states, between other nations, and the indian tribe. It was just to difficult under the articles of confederation for states and other nations to establish trade with the United states since the entire nations had one policy, each state had its own, and indian tribes. This made it difficult to trade since each entity mentioned had its own unique policy.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I thought I just add some my own thoughts to it.

By: Ed Roberts

Ed Roberts — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:08:27 +0000

The main problem with the so called "FFAs" are that they come from politicians and are being passed solely to benefit politicians. State politicians propose these acts merely to tap into citizen anger over federal authoritarianism. Note that all are worded in a way which concedes the main point: that the "commerce clause" empowers the federal legislature to usurp reserved rights and powers of the citizenry.

State politicians are politicians. None of them will agree to anything which limits their authority or which acknowledges that the citizens have rights that are not subject to review and revision by the political class. I've posted before that these FFAs passed by state legislatures are worthless. Nullification can only be accomplished by the refusal of individual citizens to be ruled by amoral politicians at any level.

By: Harold Pack

Harold Pack — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:29:31 +0000

PS: to the above, notice that the 14nth amendment does not mention 2nd amendment (gun rights) for the new federal citizens. To return to the status of 9nth amendment state citizens we need to repeal the 14nth amendment and the designation of federal citizen hanging over us.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:58:18 +0000

I don't know what the chances are for the FFAs to pass muster but strong or weak they are good start. It took nearly 30 years to get a good test case on the 2A up to SCOTUS. It'll probably take even longer for the 10th since there is so much commerce clause case law. I'm wondering what else can be done

By: Harold Pack

Harold Pack — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:17:07 +0000

Far too many people have not yet realized that the beginning of the end of limited goverment was the 14nth amendment. Before the 14nth amendment there was no such thing as a federal citizen, however after the 14nth amendment we were citizens of the state we live in and the United States. From that time forward we were dual citizens, dual citizens no longer covered by the 9nth and 10nth amendments. Do some in depth research and you will not like what you find.

By: William

William — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:10:08 +0000

I supported the FFAs but upon reading this i still agree with the sentiment but as the second commenter said, they give away far to much.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:39:38 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by iabet: RT @fr33tweet: RT @libertyideals –04-21T07:52:28ZCommerce, Jurisdiction and Firearms Freedom Acts #libertarian http://bit.ly/bnnpTC http://bit.ly/9qJyZs…

By: Red in SC

Red in SC — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:36:03 +0000

Since the Civil War, the states have seen their powers diminished to the point that the term "states rights" no longer has any meaning. While the Union cause was noble and honorable, the enforcement of a policy at the point of a gun was wrong and led to disastrous results.

Now, we are asking the impossible; that the federal government restrain itself. The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches are all part of the same entity and share a common interest in expanding the power of the federal government. These Firearms Freedom Acts are hollow gestures. A branch of the Federal government, the Supreme Court, will eventually rule on them. So, we, the people, no longer have the power to limit the Federal government, since it has the final say on what is Constitutional, and the sole power to enforce what it rules.