Because it seems kind of meaningless to me. I mean, I know it's a symbol, and it's nice to see state legislators at least symbolically thumbing their noses at the feds. But why this particular issue? And will the states push back on more substantive matters? Like ceasing to send money to the feds so they can stop being blackmailed with threats not to get some of it back?
I'm talking about the Firearms Freedom Act, which as of yesterday six governors have signed into law and a shiteload of states are considering. Montana made the law official last April, and I expected it to quietly pass into obscurity. Lately I've made a real habit of underestimating gun law activists. Now it's all over the place.
As I understand it, the FFA says in effect that if guns or ammo are made in a state and retained within the state, federal laws regarding their regulation have no effect. Every action of the US government since WWII indicates disagreement with that position, since way back in Wickard v. Filburn the feds said everything you do affects interstate commerce even when you're not doing anything, so they get to regulate everything. That was repeated as recently as 2005 in the Gonzales v. Raich medical marijuana case.
Nobody expected the feds to just go quietly along with the FFA, and they haven't. BATFE sent a letter to all Montana FFLs back in July, telling them pretty much what you'd expect the ATF to say: "Screw your law, you'll obey us or find another line of work after you get out of prison. Have a nice day." The Montana Shooting Sports Association and Second Amendment Foundation sued Eric Holder in federal court, obviously hoping for an eventual supreme court ruling. Back in January the feds responded with a motion to dismiss, saying none of the plaintiffs had any standing to sue anybody, and as far as I know that's as far as that's gone. But in the meantime state after state has signed similar bills into law, and that's weird.
As with so many positive-seeming law-related things, I don't know what to think about this. I know what it's supposed to mean, but I'm not convinced that it really means that. How far do you guys think this sort of thing will really go?
Tortured Poet
1 hour ago
5 comments:
Nowhere.
As an example, sort of, of nothing being done. It's the American way.
That wasn't an example of people doing nothing. That was an example of the feds doing the wrong thing. With lots of guns.
Not sure what your point is.
This, usually, happens when one entity attempts to control another. One insists on remaining unmolested, while the other insists on molesting. We know that there is going to be a fight, so each side is trying to justify the righteousness of its positions before the main event.
The winner will spin the history of the event to its liking, and all will be well, until the next time. At least, it's not boring.
Until State governors are willing to interpose between residents of their state and agents of the .gov on specific cases, then it's just BS. It looks good, sounds good, and makes us gun owners feel good, but I wouldn't be willing to bet a prison sentence on it. I sincerely hope some governor somewhere proves me wrong!
Post a Comment