Fight over Gun Rights Hinges not just on Second Amendment

picture-21

(Blogger’s note: To read earlier analysis and stories on the gun debate, click here. Please feel free to take the poll to the right of this page as well.)

The next “battlefield” over gun rights in America might not revolve around the second amendment, but rather its counterpart eight amendments down the page on the Bill of Rights.

Not familiar with the 10th Amendment? Here’s a quick refresher by way of Wikipedia:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In the current issue of Time, Reporter Hilary Hylton dissects moves in several states to establish their own regulation on gun manufacturers, in an effort to circumvent the federal ones. Most recently, Montana passed a law to use its own regulations as long as the weapon was made in “Big Sky Country,” and it is kept for use therein.

Hylton reports that it’s likely the 10th Amendment debate will be headed for the U.S. Supreme Court.

3 thoughts on “Fight over Gun Rights Hinges not just on Second Amendment

  1. Where have you been? Many states are rebelling and declaring their soverignity. It’s not all about guns, but about Federal interference Washington’s own bill, which did not pass this year, is below.

    HJM 4009

    TO THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND
    TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
    REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
    UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
    SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE’S
    LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

    We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of
    the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully represent and petition as follows:

    WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
    States specifically provides that, “The powers not delegated to the
    United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
    are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”; and

    WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal
    power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the
    Constitution of the United States and no more; and

    WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers
    between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as
    one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science; and

    WHEREAS, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” said,
    “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.
    Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and
    indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external
    objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The
    powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects
    which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”; and

    WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not
    “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are
    “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is
    the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”;
    and

    WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people
    will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium
    between the general and the state governments.” He believed that “this
    balance between the national and state governments forms a double
    security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their
    rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed,
    they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional
    limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between
    them.”; and

    WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means
    that the federal government was created by the states specifically to
    be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states; and

    WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as
    agents of the federal government; and

    WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the
    Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

    WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.
    United States, 112 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply
    commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states; and

    WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and
    some now being considered by the present administration and from
    Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

    NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:

    (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
    powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
    by the Constitution of the United States; and

    (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal
    5 government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective
    immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its
    constitutionally delegated powers.

    BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately
    transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United
    States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
    House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker
    of the House of Representatives of each state’s legislature of the
    United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of Washington.

    Nearly identical bills have been introduced in many other states, including New Hampshire, Montana, Missouri, and Hawaii. Take a look here:

    http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

  2. Nice job Marvin. Kudo’s to you. The most significant act that has occured, in my opinion, which really got the ball rolling on “re-recognition” of the 10th Amendment was Montana’s stance regarding firearms. It was their argument that a firearm made in Montana, that stays in Montana, does not fall under Federal Jurisdiction. Intra-State vs. Inter-State. I say hooray for them. If I am correct, that bill has already been signed into law and will become effective in October I believe. And many other states are, or have been, following suit. The history of the Federal Governments out of control growth, over reaching powers and the desire to own all/be all, came to be back in the forties. It happened something more or less like this: A man growing wheat on his own property, for his own use (his wife would process it and they used for baking, cooking, all the things you use flour and wheat for)was told to stop growing his own wheat as he was not growing enough of it, and that his crop could upset the balance of the economy. He landed in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and they agreed, stating that the government had the right to regulate products for interstate sale. This wheat, never left his property yet the government jumped on the decision and said “We can do anything we want and just say it’s in the interest of Interstate Commerce.” Kind of like “In the interest of National Security.” The government has over reached it’s authority for decades and it is high time that we tell them no more. The Federal Government is looking to take over. If California is bailed out by the government, the government now owns them. It is a very dangerous ledge that these states are standing on. Imagine that a young couple has fallen behind a couple of months on their mortgage. They go to the in-laws and say “we’re in trouble and we’re about to lose everything.” The in-laws say “we’ll bail you out, don’t worry about it.” Once the bail out has occured, the in-laws now feel they have the right to dictate your every move. When you eat, when you go to bed. How often you can shower or have the lights on. What color you can paint the house, which flowers you can plant. Get the picture? The government would love nothing more than to start gaining control of the individual states. I realize they “didn’t want to run the car companies”, but look how quickly they jumped into it. We’re going to sell ourselves out if we don’t tell our elected officials “NO! NOT NOW, NOT EVER!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

(Not a trick question) What color is the pink house?