Wyoming Legislature Passes the Firearms Freedom Act

It's understood that Congress regulates commerce between states so that one state does not cut-off another, impose sanctions, or impede another from buying or selling elsewhere. It is not the federal authority to micro-manage the commerce WITHIN that state, as it is the authority of the state government for which it exists--then why have a state government if the feds do everything?

There has to be swift and brutal punishment for anyone federal official that treads upon this state law. If there is no teeth, then it will not work. BUT, what will happen, as it always does, the fed with withhold federal money until the state backs down, and this law will be worthless.

Michael:

My prior question is directed at anyone who can comment.

If anyone does learn of an intrepid manufacturer who is beginning to make 'Single State Firearms', please post links so it can be verified. I'm sure such a development would be worthy of an article, no ?

I have heard that one strategy that has been theorized is that the Federal Government plans to revoke any Federal Firearms License if they would take part in a 'Single State Firearm' plan.

OK, that is their perogative.

Which would mean (to my understanding) one of two things:

1) State in question would defend their citizen / FFL holder in court proceedings against the Fed Gov for such an action (to maintain their current FFL status, while taking part in SSF sales or

2) A new category of 'In State Guns Only' dealer, working under the newly created State Statute, would arise, that is no part of the FFL dealer structure, over which the FG would have no sway.

It would seem there should be no shortage of enterprising businesses that would jump at this chance for new business & customers.

For 'In State Only Gun Sales' to begin, it seems that all that would be practically needed is:

1) State willingness to defend said merchant from any attempted Federal Action
2) Manufacturer of 'In State Guns'
3) Line of hungry customers at the door......

Some exciting times we live in. I will check back often to see how this all develops & post anything I see here.

I pray God grants us & we are willing to muster up the intestinal fortitude to enjoin & engage all these challenges.

To quote Patrick Henry, we are engaged in .....' the animating Contest of Freedom.....'

TM

Fantastic! This is the kind of back and forth debate that I actually LEARN something from! Gentlemen, Bravo..... Let's keep this debate open and going, as I soak it all up like a sponge! Thank you.

Big fan here of your work. Bravo. The foregoing exchange was invigorating, if excruciating. My 'inner Law student' was taken back 10 years to those days. It also confirmed why I didn't finish Law School. That said, Constitutional Law is still an abiding interest, and how it developed from it's "fountainhead" sources in Natural Law & Biblical Law from antiquity.

But for my simple question: I'm following the FFA progress: Does any state have a manufacturer who has begun to make these "xxxxx state only firearms" - I assume they'll be clearly marked for Use Only Within xxxxx State. I did a search last month and couldn't find any evidence that ANY manufacturer had begun this process.

My point is, until this happens, the law is more Theory than Reality.

Any thoughts on this practical side of the FFA process, and it's yet to begin interaction with the free market & actual, solid steel 'non-regulated' Liberty Teeth ?

(George Washington called firearms "Liberties Teeth")

Thanks for your thoughts - Keep up the great work - God bless this Republic

Texas Minuteman

Let me make this quite simple - even a sixth grader could understand. When "the People" get tired of all of the Lawyer Esquire BS (what does this mean - what did they mean mumbo jumbo) they are going to turn to the one thing that guarantees there point of view will be heard. There ability to arm themselves and their duty to do so. Then all of these arguments are going to appear quite trivial.

So when that fateful day comes and it will, you bring your Harvard law dictionary and they will bring their peacemakers and we will see who ends up with the biggest hole in them. In the end the People will decide what means what and no court in the world is going to tell them otherwise.

Oh, yes, the 14th amendment is a big issue, too.

What a mess! To me, the 14th amendment ("due process" and "privileges or immunities" language) has virtually nothing to do with the question of the Bill of Rights applying to the States. The podcast you had on that was great fun!

The most I could say there is that the 5th amendment has the same 'due process' words in it as the 14th amendment so the 14th amendment protects state citizens from their state in that way just as the 5th protects them from the feds. But, this really just further bolsters the argument that they knew exactly how to include the rights in the 1st 8 amendments and they did NOT do so except for that one part of the 5th amendment.

Further, the words 'privileges or immunities' is nowhere in the Bill of Rights (but it's elsewhere mentioned in a kind of comity sense) so I can't see how that language was intended to apply the Bill of Rights as against the states.

That leaves you with the idea that the 14th amendment was intended to give slaves the same rights as citizens had in the states they came from at the time the North won the War Between the States and imposed its will on the Southern States. In other words, it put slaves on equal footing with free people in the various states. That's what it says and that makes perfect sense.

I always read the document carefully and look for a meaning that gives the LEAST power to the federal government. Always! (As you have just seen...)

you know it! and yes, I really enjoy discussing these things, especially with someone like yourself who is of a rare breed that understands the 14th amendment in its proper place.

I do think the weakest part of my argument is the states part. I will look at it further and likely focus more on the word among. Till next time!

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it, too.

Although I didn't persuade you, at least we had a lively discussion and shared our conflicting views without resorting to name calling and vitriol, etc.

I bet you feel as I do that your point is so obvious it's frustrating to think the other guy, who obviously cares deeply and is not a moron, just doesn't get it! : )

Have a great evening!

Well, I definitely enjoy the discussion!

All I am saying is that I agree with you on going to the definitions of the words first. That is just what I said in a comment above.

But the first assumption you have made is your claim about the definition of the word states - this word had multiple definitions at the time, and thus, it is required for proper constitutional understanding to dig deeper.

If you want to argue definitions of the word states, you will also need to argue definitions of the word among, and the context of the entire sentence - which would mean, at the time, going in and out of.....states.

If I'm mistaken on anything here, it would be my focus on states as people of the states, although it is an important thing to cover.

Reminder - the clause does NOT say, Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce between states....which would be defined as trade made from one state entity to another. that concept was never discussed, never considered and never ratified.

Everything from the federalist papers to the ratification debates to the rest supports the definition I have provided. If you don't like it, argue with the founders, not me!

Ok, this will be my final comment on this topic (even though I have 16 or so to go... tee-hee )

The correct way to interpret a legal document is FIRSTLY through the words themselves.

Only if you can't find a clear meaning from those words do you get to go to other sources such as those you mentioned. We don't need any historical basis and definition of the word "State" since it's clear from the 4 corners of the document itself what that word means. It is not subject to ready misunderstanding. Everyone knew what a state was back then and we all still know what a state is today.

If, as you contend, the Drafters goofed and wrote 'State' when they meant to write 'the people of the Several States' then we need to amend the Constitution to correct their error for surely it was an error. I sure as heck would NOT vote for that "correction!"

I'd be interested in your legal and logical justification for the method of statutory interpretation you espouse which is to FIRST look to sources beyond the document in question to understand the document even if it is readily understood on its face.

The fact that other people do that simply proves that many people are misinformed on this topic - just as they are misinformed about many things such as the idea that we get our liberties from the Constitution. That fact that most Americans think they get their rights from the Constitution doesn't make that idea correct.

Every first year law student is taught from Blackstone forward the method I espouse for the interpretation of legal documents because it is logical. If someone abandons that method, they do so at their own peril and I submit that is almost exactly what has happened to the Constitution.

This is not my personal interpretation of the Constitution. I am simply reading the words as writ and I have no problem reading them and giving meaning to them and I don't have to resort to anything outside the document to do so.

This is the basis for all legal interpretation and it makes good sense. The method you espouse allows us to get into debates that are simply not necessary and result in all kinds of mischief. Again, that's what has happened and it's a mess.

Thanks for all your hard work on this site.

I'll be interested to see if any lawyer reading this is able to apply the rules of statutory construction to this issue and reach the correct result.

I also prefer that D.C. had virtually no power at this point. It would be better to have them not touch commerce in any way. But, I cannot argue against the original meaning, which is what I have explained.

And, on top of it, there is not a single explanation by a founder that I am aware of that explains it any differently either in debates or in explaining it to the people themselves.

The reason I mentioned D.C. not having the power to prevent state trade roadblocks is because this was the offered reason for the clause! To deny the explained and ratified reason for a clause is a serious mistake in constitutional understanding. It's just what the courts and politicians do every day.

Your personal interpretation would be better than what we have today, but if you are unable to provide some historical basis and definition of the words you are using - then it holds no water.

I would, of course, be quite interested in anything you might be able to provide from the founding generation to back up your theory.

If you find anything, I strongly recommend you publish it in a law journal or something, because that would be a historical find!

All jesting aside, though - your view is your opinion of how the words works. But, because the constitution is a legal document, the meaning of the words, the intent of the drafters and the understanding of the signers must be a part of it. In none of those do you find historical basis for your opinion.

Remember, though, to claim that the word states in the clause means government, is to willingly ignore the multiple definitions of the word in use at the time. Which included - the public, the community, a non-monarchical government, and others.

Hi, again, Michael,

Thanks for your comment. It amplifies and clarifies your thinking but still isn't correct. : )

"Among" is used because it is grammatically correct in this context. You don't HAVE to read it the way you're reading it. You CAN read it the way I suggest and still make sense out of it. In fact, you admit that Washington would have "almost" no power because "most" trade is among people.

"Almost" and "most" do not exclude everything so this clause gives Congress power over SOME things. That's good enough.

My reading gives meaning to all the words and is grammatically correct without resorting to anything outside the document or to 'common understanding' or arguing that the word 'States' here actually means 'the people of the several States.' Surely you are aware that the Drafters were FAR MORE careful than that. They knew how to say "the people of the several States" when they wanted to.

Again, it's hard for me to understand why you, of all people, would WANT to read it the way you're reading it...

I didn't proffer what 'regulate' or 'commerce' mean because I don't have to do that make the point. I'm just talking about the meaning of the word "States" in Article I, Sec. 8. I have posted in other areas what 'regulate' means (it's one of my specialties! : ) )

Please notice that I also didn't argue what the word "several" means in this context and, for the sake of brevity, I'll just note that it furthers my case - not yours.

I think the big mistake you're making is that you're starting from the premise that your prior understanding of the 'commerce clause' must be correct and then you're trying to justify that prior understanding. That's common.

Someone once told me it takes 6 repetitions for the average person to learn something new and 20 repetitions to UNlearn something they misunderstood.

So, I've only got about 17 more comments to go!! : )

I'm not one to brag but it may help to note that I'm a federal lawyer of 30 years and worked in and for the federal court system. I"ve authored hundreds of published legal opinions on federal law and I'm not speaking lightly or without authority. I can easily hold my own against Prof. Natelson or others and find most US Supreme Court opinions fraught with legal errors.

I really appreciate the TAC and all the hard and good work here and the contributions of everyone. I am thrilled that people are finally starting to get interested in this stuff. I love the opportunity to share my thoughts and learn from everyone.

All I'm asking is that you try to open your mind and read the document with NO PRECONCEPTIONS about what it means.

Finally, I'm just fine with your observation that my interpretation means "d.c. would have almost no power." The less, the better.

I believe your first mistake here is the biggest...you're injecting your definitions of the words in a modern sense in replace of the original meaning. That's leading you astray.

You are correct, though, that we need to understand the exact words in the constitution!

With that in mind, the first step is an 18th century dictionary...preferably a law dictionary, as this is a legal document that we're studying.

The next step, when the first is not easily attained....which happens....is to understand the intent of those who drafted the text.

The final, and possibly most important, part is to review what the ratifiers understood they were approving.

This is standard process for constitutional explanations...and how the founders told us to do it in the future.

It's also quite rare.

Hi, Michael,

I must respectfully disagree about individuals being covered by Art. I, Sec.8.

You write: "They can absolutely regulate commerce ... whether between states or individuals."

And: "This is how it was understood at the time of the founding."

Sadly, you cite nothing from the US Constitution in support of this.

Please understand, I'm aware that there are scholarly articles such as those by Prof. Natelson that discuss what the term 'commerce' meant at the time of the drafting and go on and on reviewing what the common practices were at the time and what TJ thought and what JM thought, etc. (As they say, "Publish or perish!")

That's not relevant here because, as a legal and logical matter, one should not refer to writings outside the document itself if the meaning can be gleaned from the 4 corners of the document. This is a very useful rule of statutory construction. I didn't make it up and I don't cite it now just to win an argument. It is a VERY important rule that keeps us all bound by the actual words that were used in the official, legal documents that were approved by all and NOT by the thoughts and ideas of people involved in the drafting that did not make it into the document. Those will always vary and not as reliable as the words themselves.

Again, the document in question is the FIRST place you look for answers to questions. If you can determine the answer from the document itself it is NOT proper to look beyond the document to alter that meaning. You need look no farther than document and it is improper to do so.

Here, it is easy to see that the Drafters were very careful and did not throw terms around loosely. The document itself refers ONLY to STATES in Art. I, Sec. 8. "Individuals" or "people" do not appear in this context.

As a result, they are not included.

It doesn't matter what Prof. Natelson would have drafted or I would have drafted or you would have written or what TJ thought he meant when he read those words, or what JM was trying to say when he wrote that, etc.

What matters is what the words actually say. That's what the people and the States approved. No more and no less.

Again, if you can make sense out of those words, you MUST follow them.

As to what 'commerce' means or what 'regulate' means, it MAY be necessary to consult sources outside the document if you can't figure it out from the 4 corners. But, that's another discussion.

And, that is simply not the case where the words here are clear and make perfect sense and where the only issue is whether a transaction NOT involving two or more States can be regulated under Art. I, Sec. 8. It cannot.

Guest, they can absolutely regulate commerce (actual mercantile trade and related activities like marine navigation) across state jurisdictional boundaries - whether between states or individuals.

The founders also made clear that this regulation did not pertain to agriculture, mining, manufacturing and all activities merely related to the commerce/trade. Those were specificially and intentionally left to the states.

This is how it was understood at the time of the founding. But, that power is severely limited in comparison to how it is used today.

This is very cool...

One concern I have with these bills is that they refer to Congressional "authority" to regulate interstate commerce as if Congress actually has that authority.

Nothing in the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to 'regulate interstate commerce.' The words "interstate commerce" do not even appear in the US Constitution.

Article I, Sec. 8 refers to "Commerce among the several States." Read that carefully and ask yourself what do those words REALLY mean?

I submit that those words can only be read as referring to commerce (whatever that is) that occurs between or among two or more STATES. For example, Oregon wants to sell electrical power to California. If that's 'commerce' then it can be 'regulated' (whatever that means) by Congress.

But, transactions among people or other entities that are not States are simply not covered by that phrase. The Drafters knew how to say 'people' when they meant people and how to say "States" when they meant States. It's very simple. Since the federal government is one of limited powers, it simply cannot regulate in ANY area where that power was not given to it.

Here's the analysis:

1) Congress has LIMITED power.
2) Art. I, Sec. 8 gives Congress the power to 'regulate' commerce between or among States.
3) Congress could "regulate" "commerce" between two States or among three or more States.
4) Congress cannot "regulate" the sale (or other transaction) of guns or ammo where one of the parties to the transaction is a person or any other entity that is not a State.

So, e.g., the sale of a gun by Bob, a person, to Fred, another person, cannot be regulated by the feds NO MATTER what States Bob and Fred reside in. The transaction in question is clearly NOT between (or among) STATES.

I would prefer it if these 'FFA laws' didn't give away anything they don't have to since it could come back to bite us later...