Gun Law Challenges Federal Powers
Byline: Valerie Richardson, THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A new Montana gun law puts the state at the forefront of a national bid to restore states' rights by attacking up to a century of federal court decisions on Washington's power.
Two other states - Alaska and Texas - have had favorable votes on laws similar to Montana's, declaring that guns that stay within the state are none of the feds' business. More than a dozen others are considering such laws, and more-general declarations of state sovereignty have been introduced this year in more than 30 legislatures.
The federal courts may not respond well to these laws in the short term, but backers who acknowledge this say that regardless, they intend for the laws to change the political landscape in the long term. They hope these state laws will undercut the legitimacy of contrary federal law - as has happened with medicinal marijuana - and even push federal courts to bend with the popular wind.
What's going on is that people all over the country have decided, 'Enough is enough,'" said Kevin Gutzman, a professor at Western Connecticut State University and the author of Who Killed the Constitution? "This is supposed to be a federal system, but instead Congress seems to think it can legislate anything it wants."
In May, Montana became the first state to approve the Firearms Freedom Act, which declares that guns manufactured and sold in the Big Sky State to buyers who plan to keep the weapons within the state are exempt from federal gun regulations.
According to the act's supporters, if guns bearing a Made in Montana stamp remain in Montana, then federal rules such as background checks, registration and dealer licensing no longer apply. But court cases have interpreted the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause as covering anything that might affect interstate commerce - which in practice means just about anything.
So if this law sounds ripe for a court challenge, well, that's the idea, said Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Sports Shooting Association, the state's largest pro-gun group.
The Interstate Commerce Clause has grown and grown until the government asserts authority over everything under the sun, said Mr. Marbut, who wrote the original firearms legislation. How much water you have in your toilet. Almost all environmental laws. Maybe one-third of all federal regulations are asserted under the Commerce Clause.
Even if the Montana law, or similar bills already being pushed in other states, don't produce a blockbuster decision overturning a century's worth of economic rulings, supporters hope it will change political conversation and make federal intrusion on state matters politically unpalatable.
The federal government, said Mr. Marbut, is a creation of the states, and the states need to get their creation on a leash.
In that sense, the law is only nominally about guns. Guns are the object, but states' rights are the subject, he said.
Even so, gun-control groups have blasted the law. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called it wrong from the constitutional side and wrong from the policy side.
But it's catching on with state legislatures. Five states have introduced their own versions of the law, while lawmakers in a dozen more are considering it.
In Alaska, the state House approved the Alaska Firearms Freedom Act by a vote of 32-7, but the Legislature adjourned before the bill could reach the Senate. …