M14 Forum banner

1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
885 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Any constitutional law experts out there?

In the middle of my second cup of coffee this morning (so around 5:45 AM or so), it occurred to me that the mandated closure of gun shops by a state or local authority in response to the Chinese Pandemic might constitute a violation of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Any thoughts on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
Although I'm not an attorney and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, allow me to opine:

The Congress passed a law to reinforce the 2nd Amendment titled "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" in 2005. This law insures that states can't interfere with legitimate firearms manufacturing by filing what can only be called nuisance lawsuits. Blue states especially, had long sought to get around the 2nd Amendment by trying to shut down production of firearms and ammunition using draconian zoning, safety, and other laws, to attain this goal.

While governors have broad powers to act in emergencies, they're probably on thin ice. Because of the short-term duration of the COVID emergency, it's difficult to move a countering law suit through the courts quickly enough to have these rules overturned, but keeping them in the courts after the current pandemic, may deter such actions in the future. It's going to be a costly effort, though.

Many gun business are local in nature, and arguments can be made that those shops don't engage in interstate commerce. However, several Supreme Court rulings, especially Wickard v. Filburn (1942), have ruled that just because something is not transacted interstate, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect interstate commerce.

Here in Michigan, the legislature has already filed a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims, asserting that the governor's powers to have absolute power during "crises" is unconstitutional.

Stay tuned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,297 Posts
Although I'm not an attorney and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, allow me to opine:
ditto
If it can be subverted it in the Gonzales vs Raich case to keep a sick old lady from growing herb in her own yard for her own use, I don't see why the other side wouldn't use it against guns.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
It is also being userped in a railroad blockade, keeping the cleanest coal in the world from getting to Western US ports.
Orwellianly, it's weasel worded for just about anything and everything, except facilitating Interstate Commerce.
 

·
Civilian Non-Combatant
Joined
·
885 Posts
Discussion Starter #4 (Edited)
Thanks for that well reasoned and supported non-legal opinion.

I would observe that most retail fir arms outlets sell guns that were manufactured in other states and transported across state lines in interstate commerce.

That has got to be true for most other retailers of non-firearm products.

As I have written in other threads recently, I think the SCOTUS docket will be full of this stuff in the next 18 months or sooner. Its not just Second Amendment issues, its a much larger thing than just guns. Many other constitutionally enshrined rights are at stake.

If Joe Biden is elected president, people like AOC and Ilhan Omar will be dictating whome he choose to replacement for Justice Ginsberg and maybe one or two others.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top