|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 9, 2013, 03:00 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
49ers Aldon Smith, CA Assault Weapons Law, and Interstate Commerce
49'ers Aldon Smith charged with illegal possession of assault weapons.
(emphasis mine) Quote:
|
|
October 9, 2013, 04:03 PM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
No. The nutshell: every state has some inherent authority to determine what is legal or illegal within its own borders. The fact that it is legal in AZ does not trump CA's right to make it illegal inside of CA.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
October 9, 2013, 04:24 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
|
Although I do not like a lot of the rules states make, I am for state's rights. He should have made sure of the law, and what was the dealer thinking?
I am glad I do not have to live in CA or other states where the govt thinks it knows so much more than the citizens of the state and passes such restrictive laws. Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. |
October 9, 2013, 04:25 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Not to divert, but the story has an interesting quote where the modern sporting rifle defense of assault weapons is not convincing to CA.
As Spats said, if CA thinks these are evil, buying evil elsewhere doesn't protect it when they enter CA.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 9, 2013, 05:13 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I'm still not clear. If Interstate Commerce is the sole domain of the US Congress, and the Constitution says it is- I can understand California being able to do the "Made in California and never having left California" dance like the nullification laws from a bit ago tried to do, but I don't understand how they can ban something made in another state, allowed in that state (and the US as a whole to prevent the Pot comparison with WA and CO legalizing it) to me it just screams the Miller Decision. They took a Short Barreled shotgun across state lines and triggered the Interstate Commerce clause. How does the State of California get around a case directly on point where the State (in this case the Federal Government) claimed taking a firearm across State Lines was interstate commerce?
Edit to Add- I can also see California being able to prohibit THEIR citizens from purchasing in another state and bringing them home- But a resident of Arizona, buying in Arizona, and taking a vacation in San Diego... that's gotta be Interstate Commerce not? |
October 9, 2013, 05:47 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 4,000
|
It's not that CA, or any other state for that matter, can make an article illegal in all other states.
It's that a state can make an article illegal within its borders, regardless of whether it is legal in another state.
__________________
God gave you a soul. Your parents, a body. Your country, a rifle. Keep all of them clean. |
October 9, 2013, 05:59 PM | #7 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) has given Congress the authority to: Courts have indeed struck down state laws which were found to impose an undue burden or excessively interfere with interstate commerce, but in general a State may exercise its police powers to regulate conduct within its borders even if such may have an incidental or remote effect on interstate commerce. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
October 9, 2013, 06:53 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Ok Frank and how does the- and I may get the precise terminology wrong so I'm hoping I get close enough for you to understand me- the Dormant Commerce clause jibe with your reading of the commerce clause? If Congress regulates the commerce its been held to be a congressional power. If they don't it's been held they haven't ceded that power either.
What is the caselaw that says the states may exercise a police power on a federal jurisdiction? |
October 9, 2013, 07:06 PM | #9 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 9, 2013, 07:07 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 776
|
Possessing an item isn't "commerce". California isn't regulating interstate commerce here.
Now, if a dealer r manufacturer was shipping a banned item from Arizona to Oregon through California, and California confiscated it or taxed it, then they would run afoul of the interstate commerce clause. |
October 9, 2013, 07:49 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
Had he "just engaged in Interstate commerce", he likely would never have been arrested.
But no, Mr. Genius decides to start shooting rounds into the air, with others following his actions. He chose to do so in a neighborhood, not the open expanses of Central California. I'm all for responsible ownership and use, had this happened in my neighborhood, I would have turned him in. Not good for us ladies and gentlemen.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
October 9, 2013, 08:01 PM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 9, 2013, 08:47 PM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
Pushing cases like Raich to their logical conclusion, it might well be that the federal government can, by the same logic, prohibit states from banning items that the federal government has decided are okay, since they are in the habit of prohibiting states from allowing items that the federal government has banned.
However, that's not the way the current tortured logic of the legal system works. Things can be banned in one state and not in another until the Supreme Court or your local federal circuit court says otherwise.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
October 9, 2013, 08:55 PM | #14 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
A general legal definition of commerce is:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 9, 2013, 09:00 PM | #15 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It is also materially affecting and controlling the price of those goods. Here we have a California legal Colt LE6920MP-B for nearly $1300. And Here we have the same rifle in a non-California Legal build for just under 1100. In an NLRB case here N.L.R.B. v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) We get this little tidbit: Quote:
To further that line of argument, we can hop laterally to Roe v Wade - there may be a better case to make my point, but this had a passage I was familiar with- Quote:
For more supporting arguments, I'd like to direct you to Katzenbach v. McClung 379 U.S. 294 the companion case of Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States 379 U.S. 241 Where the court states: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
October 9, 2013, 09:14 PM | #16 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Now cite a case in which a court found that a State's exercise of its police powers to regulate possession of something within its borders constituted a regulation of commerce. Of course, if you want to argue that it is, and have the time and money, the courts are open for business.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 9, 2013, 09:25 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I don't have the money, or I'd take a flyer at it if I could hire a brain that could pull it off.
You're suggesting that the Hypothetical State of Grumpy Old Men could ban the possession of full face-obscuring masks after seeing a Jason/Halloween Marathon followed by the Dead Presidents from Point Break leading them to believe those types of masks lead to high crimes, and this wouldn't be unconstitutional when applied to a busload of Muslim women in their hijabs. Likewise that would imply that it's permissible for a State actor to require the surrendering of one right, to exercise another. In this case, the right to travel interstate (contained in both the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities), and the right to bear arms. |
October 9, 2013, 10:32 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
States can do a whole lot of stupid stuff without necessarily violating the Commerce Clause, or even that are otherwise unconstitutional. That's why being politically active can be important. That's why we have checks and balances.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 9, 2013 at 11:56 PM. Reason: correct typo |
|
October 10, 2013, 09:14 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 4,000
|
Also, if I'm not mistaken, once the consumer purchases the article, it is no longer, "in commerce."
This bozo wasn't legally set up to be engaged in firearms commerce in CA, so he is a consumer. By contrast, Riflegear.com, is a dealer in CA and sells online all sorts of fun stuff that is not legal for sale inside of CA.
__________________
God gave you a soul. Your parents, a body. Your country, a rifle. Keep all of them clean. |
October 10, 2013, 11:50 AM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
I did notice a couple of things in the linked report, first, as usual the report makes no distinction between assault rifles and assault weapons.
Second was that part that implies that while the State does recognize that assault weapons have sporting use, that use is overwhelmed by their potential for harm, and that's why they are banned. Guy buys the rifles in AZ (apparently legally). Fine. When he brings them into CA, he has just broken CA law. Compounding things is the fact that apparently he did not register them in CA, either. Not sure how this applies, but the report specifically said they were unregistered. It might be that the particular rifles might have been legal to possess, had they been registered with the state (I rather doubt it, but I don't know). He has a party with gang members in attendance. Shots get fired, in the air, and into a couple people. Police come, find illegal guns. I don't see where this has anything to do with commerce. OR a CA citizen's right to keep and bear some arms.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
October 10, 2013, 12:00 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
You would be mistaken Destructo. Commerce is a whole lot more than buying and selling, or even shipping for buying and selling things. Interstate Commerce is more than just those items that crossed state lines in one form or another, even previous to its manufacture.
The Miller case in 39 pointed out that even though they didn't sell their short barreled shotgun after crossing the state line, merely crossing the state line put them into interstate commerce. You could be buck naked, squeaky clean and walking on air one step over the border so you don't even track dirt from one state to another, taking nothing but your body from one state to another and you are in interstate commerce. Likewise, you could run the biggest chicken ranch in the world, never use anything- not feed, not butchering, nor even the gas in the truck you use to drive to market, nothing from out of state, nor sell your chicken out of state, and you could/would be in interstate commerce because your supply affects the demand for out of state chicken. Interstate commerce is a fairly broad catch-all that has probably been over-broadly interpreted, but even the Founding Fathers knew it would be, and couldn't find a better way to handle it. |
October 10, 2013, 12:16 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
From 44 Amp:
"Guy buys the rifles in AZ (apparently legally). Fine." Although the gun may be legal in AZ, is it legal to sell it to a resident of another state where it is illegal? If this was bought from a dealer, I think someone messed up. |
October 10, 2013, 01:42 PM | #23 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Further, we have here a paraphrase or quote, I'm unsure which as I can't seem to find the text in an opinion, or even the case referenced, Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
October 10, 2013, 01:48 PM | #24 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 10, 2013, 02:04 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 193
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
|
|