Commerce clause: The ultimate evil?

[Batousaii]

<snip>... In this case, it takes three to tango. Any one branch could have killed the overreach.

- So how do we get one of the branches (or preferably more than one) to "do their job" as public servants, and limit the commerce clause's power properly.
- I don't think the commerce clause should be 100% repealed, I am sure it has it's place if used properly, but it does indeed need to be greatly limited and tightly controlled by "We the People". Is there a mechanic that could be forced upon the supreme court and used to unhinge the commerce clause from the second amendment, or other areas that are being improperly applied?

 

[Whitney]

Firearms are specifically Exempt

Last year I wrote to the legislature with regard to Representative Matt Shea’s Bill known as HB 1990 and suggested a way to put a large sum of money into our economy through the repeal of Federal excise tax on firearms. The reply to my writing suggested the commerce clause would not permit Washington State to do this.

I have been scratching my head on this commerce clause for a while, what follows is a brief summary. The long version is attached as a PDF.


Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 10 defines commerce as follows;
The term “interstate commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia. The term “foreign commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.

Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 44 Section 921 defines commerce as follows;
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State. The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (not including the Canal Zone).

Section 921 is specifically related to firearms and is very different from section 10.
I believe the federal excise tax is not authorized based on different definitions of the commerce clause.



Q. Why is there such a difference between these definitions of commerce?
A. Regulation of commerce is not a nationwide concept and cannot be applied to the States.


Q. What does any place in a State mean?
A. The “places” mentioned in S 921 are the places noted in section 7. Federal lands that are not within the jurisdiction of the State, however, they are within the boundaries of the State.


Q. Why is commerce between any place within a State (S921) different than commerce between one state (S 10)?
A. For the purpose of Ch 44 Congress has defined “State” as “the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , and the possessions of the United States; all territorial.


Here is how it reads after clarification, as it pertains to Ch 44.
The term “interstate or foreign commerce” includes commerce between any area of land under federal jurisdiction that is within a State and any area of land under Federal jurisdiction that is outside the State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia.
Reference to place in Ch44 S 921 is a place within a State or outside a State, that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Congress as per Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 of the U. S. Constitution.
The interstate and foreign commerce referred to in Ch 44 S 921 is limited and only applies between such places. The Federal Government has no police powers regarding commerce of firearms as applied to Ch 44.
In short the Federal Government is not authorized to collect tax on firearms under the commerce clause unless the transfer is in places defined in section 7 of title 18.


~Whitney

 

[Freedom1Man]

Yes, but the courts didn't DO it. The executive hatched and executed plans, and the Congress either legislated or failed to legislate appropriately. In this case, it takes three to tango. Any one branch could have killed the overreach.

I never said that they did do it.

They are the last government level protection though. The final protection is something we cannot really talk about on this forum.

 

[John Hardin]

I must disagree with this.
The rampant abuse of any power by the government necessitates the removal of said power.
It is my opinion that the commerce clause should be stricken from the constitution.

Stricken? No, that is an overreaction. Regulation of some factors of interstate commerce are good and proper: standards for weights and measures, contracts, product labeling, punishment of misleading or fraudulent interstate marketing, and the prevention of interstate tariffs by a state seeking to protect local producers from out-of-state competitors are all things the federal government should have power over.

The abuse stems from thinking that once something has ever crossed a state line in commercial trade, it's forever after subject to federal control; that if something could cross a state line it's properly subject to federal control; or, worse yet, as was shockingly upheld by Roosevelt's court, that totally private production that somehow affects something else that is or could be involved in interstate commerce becomes subject to federal control. Wage and price controls, production quotas or limits, and subsidies also need explicit limits or to be put explicitly off-limits.

It just needs to have boundaries explicitly set rather than implied; this is the weakness of a lot of the Constitution - for example, the "general welfare" clause.

 

[nonameisgood]

...The Federal Government has no police powers regarding commerce of firearms as applied to Ch 44.
In short the Federal Government is not authorized to collect tax on firearms under the commerce clause unless the transfer is in places defined in section 7 of title 18.


~Whitney

There is a bill here in Texas that would exempt intrastate manufacture and sale of guns, ammo, and accessories from federal regulation. Currently, there are various state laws that recognize the federal rules for certain things.

I never said that they did do it.

They are the last government level protection though. The final protection is something we cannot really talk about on this forum.

I think we agree.

 

[marshaul]

There is a bill here in Texas that would exempt intrastate manufacture and sale of guns, ammo, and accessories from federal regulation.

Several states already have such laws. The feds are unimpressed.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Several states already have such laws. The feds are unimpressed.

+1 Lincoln was unimpressed with the constitution and they idolize him, build a monument to him, like ancient Greek monuments of their gods.

 

[Batousaii]

There is a bill here in Texas that would exempt intrastate manufacture and sale of guns, ammo, and accessories from federal regulation. Currently, there are various state laws that recognize the federal rules for certain things.

Whereas this bill a good thing (we have one here in WA too), it is in fact a band-aid attempting to heal a larger wound (larger issue). Larger issue being that the federal government should not be applying tax to, forbidding manufacture or sales of, or defining size, shape, capacity or configuration of the arms that "We the People", the same people defined as the militia, have the Right to Keep and Bear. The end game goal should be enforcing "Shall not be infringed", as a protected right of the people, against the commerce clause to separate and completely isolate the second amendment as a standalone concept, as it should be. All firearms laws should be scrutinized against the second amendment alone.