|
|
03-30-2010, 10:38 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Eagle River, AK
Posts: 569
Likes: 1
Liked 87 Times in 23 Posts
|
|
Bill would exempt Arizona firearms from feds
Looks like Arizona is the latest state where the legislature has passed a law to exempt firearms manufactured in and sold to Arizona residents from federal regulation. The bill does state that the firearm must be stamped "Made in Arizona"
What also makes this bill significant is unlike Monrana, Tennessee and Wyoming, we have a major firearms manufacturer located in the state. Ruger has a significant part of its operations in Prescott, AZ. Then there's also Dillon Aero, I wonder if a mini gun could be considered a "personal firearm"? It will be interesting to see how this plays out, if any firearms manufacturers, distributors or dealers try and challenge the feds or not.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/...-move-guns-bill.html
Last edited by Smith357; 08-07-2010 at 06:27 PM.
|
03-30-2010, 11:31 AM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SE Mich - O/S Detroit
Posts: 3,159
Likes: 2,026
Liked 2,801 Times in 1,017 Posts
|
|
Ruger would have a difficult time, probably as would Dillon. Ruger is a Delaware-incorporated company, and conducts business interstate. That puts them under control of the federal government (Treasury, State, etc.).
Until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns such cases as Wickard v. Filburn, these laws are near moot. Even if an Arizona-incorporated company were to go into the firearms business, and manufacture and sell only in Arizona, the courts have held that this activity affects interstate commerce. The "commerce clause" in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted very broadly in favor of the U.S. government. Unless, and until this power is more narrowly defined, the proverbial uphill fight becomes one of Mt. Everest proportions.
How does a company insure that it's firearms are used only within Arizona? There's nothing that would keep a person from using that firearm in New Mexico, Nevada, or another state. Once that firearm crosses the state border, it becomes subject to interstate commerce laws.
|
03-30-2010, 05:01 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Liked 38 Times in 26 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis The B
Once that firearm crosses the state border, it becomes subject to interstate commerce laws.
|
It doesn't even have to cross the state line. That's what the case you cited establishes, the principle that a practice only has to affect interstate commerce. It doesn't actually have to be interstate commerce.
Stick a fork in this sucker(AZ law), it's done.
Bob
|
03-30-2010, 09:38 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 314
Liked 75 Times in 33 Posts
|
|
The difference that I see, with the two cases that are usually quoted about intra state affecting inter state commerse is obvious. The other cases didn't have a constitutional amendment relating to them. A court could see that the 2nd amendment trumps the commerce clause when dealing with intra state firearms.
Whether that actually happens is another point. I think these will affect gun rights about equal to the gun bans affect on crime.
__________________
Pete.
|
04-01-2010, 02:21 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 732
Likes: 1,295
Liked 713 Times in 273 Posts
|
|
I really don't see these state laws surviving judicial review. While the Heller decision affirmed the Second Amendment as a guarantee of an individual right, it also had a long segment stating that government could regulate commerce in firearms, access by convicted felons, and concealed carry.
As a practical matter, I don't see what is gained by these laws. If people are thinking that they could buy a gun made in their home state without a NICS check or filling out Form 4473, that would mean that the states would be allowing firearms sales without ascertaining that the purchaser could legally own a gun (illegal aliens, felons, etc.). Why would we want that? If people are thinking that these laws will do an end-run around the National Firearms Act and allow them to buy locally produced or home-made machine guns, suppressors and other NFA items, I think that's even less likely to survive the courts. Also, who would invest in a business where the first test case could close your business or result in a Federal firearms conviction?
|
04-01-2010, 10:30 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,210
Likes: 314
Liked 75 Times in 33 Posts
|
|
I guess you don't remember the days of the $6 Manlicher Carcano's in the bucket before the first Kenedy got shot. Some of these states are trying to get past the BS of AWB etc
__________________
Pete.
|
04-03-2010, 11:43 AM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 82
Likes: 3
Liked 8 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Most people look at the firearms manufacturers in their state when thinking about these proposed laws. I think this is mis-guided.
The value as I see it, is that I can assemble a fire arm, and not have to worry about ridiculous federal laws.
It doesn't take much for you to manufacture a fire-arm, under federal law. Fortunately, it is still legal, (with the exception of machine guns). The Firearms Freedom Act, if passed in my home state, would give me a much greater peace of mind, however.
I think it is a good move. I hope that more states take this path.
|
04-03-2010, 04:01 PM
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 732
Likes: 1,295
Liked 713 Times in 273 Posts
|
|
Can anyone tell me specifically what current federal laws they would be exempt from under these new state laws and how that would be an advantage.
Also, I would question whether anyone would go into the business of manufacturing firearms from materials and parts from a single state that could then only be sold in that state. This seems like a poor business model.
|
04-06-2010, 08:42 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: between Rodeo and Paradis
Posts: 423
Likes: 1
Liked 12 Times in 4 Posts
|
|
Passed, and signed by Gov. Brewer
__________________
My Mother likes me.
|
04-07-2010, 09:18 PM
|
|
US Veteran
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SE Mich - O/S Detroit
Posts: 3,159
Likes: 2,026
Liked 2,801 Times in 1,017 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKSmith
Can anyone tell me specifically what current federal laws they would be exempt from under these new state laws and how that would be an advantage.
Also, I would question whether anyone would go into the business of manufacturing firearms from materials and parts from a single state that could then only be sold in that state. This seems like a poor business model.
|
There is no exemption from federal laws, as the federal courts have ruled (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942). Any company in business, even though they do not sell interstate, still affect interstate commerce, ergo they are governed by the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, U. S. Constitution).
These laws are just "feel good" acts, unenforceable at best, and nonstarters for the federal government (BATFE, IRS, etc.).
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
|
|
|
|