Firearms, ammunition, etc.; those manufactured and retained in State not subject to federal law. (HB886)
Introduced By
Del. Clay Athey (R-Front Royal) with support from co-patrons Del. Rich Anderson (R-Woodbridge), Del. Anne Crockett-Stark (R-Wytheville), Del. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock), Del. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Woodbridge), and Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester)
Progress
✓ |
Introduced |
☐ |
Passed Committee |
☐ |
Passed House |
☐ |
Passed Senate |
☐ |
Signed by Governor |
☐ |
Became Law |
Description
Firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in Virginia. Declares that firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Virginia and retained within the borders of Virginia are not subject to federal law or regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Read the Bill »
Status
02/12/2010: Merged into HB69
History
Date | Action |
---|---|
01/13/2010 | Committee |
01/13/2010 | Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/10 10102252D |
01/13/2010 | Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety |
01/28/2010 | Assigned MPPS sub: #1 |
02/04/2010 | Subcommittee recommends incorporating (HB69-Carrico) |
02/12/2010 | Incorporated by Militia, Police and Public Safety (HB69-Carrico) |
Comments
Can Virginia declare that? Doesn't congress and the Supreme Court determine what constitutes "interstate commerce"? I'd really like to know by what power we could do such a thing.
Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. It really is that simple. This is Virginia invoking the 10th Amendment. Other states should follow suit, or the Republic will fall.
We don't get to "invoke" an amendment. That's not how they work. The Supreme Court has a long series of opinions that have established what is and is not interstate commerce, all based on Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, aka the "commerce clause." The tenth amendment holds that powers that aren't delegated to the federal government are reserved by the states. The commerce clause gives the federal government the right to oversee commerce, and the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the tenth amendment does not restrict that in any way.
In U.S. v. Sprague they wrote that the tenth amendment "added nothing" to the constitution." Wickardv. Filburn held that a man growing feed for his own chickens was subject to regulation under the commerce clause.
If you don't like seeing commerce within the state subject to regulation by the federal government, that's swell—you should push for an amendment to the constitution. But passing a law saying "we're not bound to adhere to the constitution" is not a law at all. It's a joke. You might as well pass a law in your house saying that you're not subject to state or local laws. You're welcome to do that, but it'd be a strong sign that all is not well with your sanity. :)
This isn't interstate commerce, waldo. several other states have already passed the similar legislation
I'm not giving you my opinion, I'm giving you the Supreme Court's opinion. But I'm sure it would be useful for everybody to find out more about these other states, and how they passed such bills. Could you provide some links to document your claim?
Waldo, this is "intrastate" commerce, not "interstate" commerce. This same state legislation has actually passed in Montana and is currently also up for votes in New Hampshire and Texas. There is precedent for this.
I'm very well aware of the difference, Phil, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that any commerce is interstate commerce. This goes back to Gibbens v. Ogden, in 1824, when the SCOTUS held in a unanimous ruling that when one state's intrastate commerce regulations infringe on another state's intrastate commerce, that is within Congress’ purview to take action. Justice William Johnson, writing in his concurrence, said of the framers’ intent:
The court briefly backtracked in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), which was a result of Congress’ prohibition on child labor. The plaintiff argued that Congress had no power to say whether or not children could be employed in factories, since that's a matter for the states to regulate.
But that split (5-4) ruling didn't last long—it was overturned in U.S. v. Darby Lumber Company in 1941. A lower court, relying on the Hammer ruling, found that the Fair Labor Standards Act was unenforceable within states (remembering that the Hammer precedent found that only interstate commerce could be regulated by Congress). But it was appealed up to the Supreme Court, who unanimously ruled that the Tenth Amendment is simply without power, and utterly rebuked Hammer. Writing for the majority (or, in other words, everybody on the court), Chief Justice Harlan Stone wrote:
And, the coup de grace of this ruling:
There's no wiggle room there; it's unusually direct language for a SCOTUS ruling. And that stands as the law of the land which, as you can see, makes this bill completely impossible.
It's nice that this legislation has passed in Montana, but that doesn't mean anything. The legislature could pass a law barring white people from owning land, prohibiting firearm ownership, or abolishing newspapers, but lacking any legal merit, those laws would just be words on a page.