Tennessee Seceeds-At least maybe their firearms

[agentl074]

This could be a huge economic option for Indiana - creating jobs!!! We really do need to bring manufacturing back - MADE IN THE USA!!! BUILT WITH PRIDE IN INDIANA!!! What do ya'll think about that?

 

[cosermann]

. . . Pat Bauer . . .

Good enough reason to vote Republican in the next election regardless of who your state rep candidate is. Pat has to go.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I hope you are joking. That can't happen.

They already do that. I don't have a citation to give you at present, but will get one ASAP.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Tandem160]

I'm not on board with this idea of what is made here stays here. Fact is there are no guns made in Indiana. Are there plans for guns to made in our state..I dunno. What I do know is Colts, Remingtons, Glocks, Sigs, Kimbers, Barretts, Mossbergs, Henrys, Bushmasters, Smith & Wessons, DPMS's, Springfields, Taurus's, Heckler & Koch's, Armalites, Heritage Arms, Mausers, Handi-Rifles, Savages, Wilson Combats, Les Baers... hell even Hi-points are not made in Indiana. If every state adopted this law pickens would be slim for a long time and used (unmarked) guns prices would eclispe the price of .380 ammo.

 

[dburkhead]

What guns are made here in Indiana?

Ask better what receivers/frames (the regulated/licensed part) are made here in Indiana. I seem to recall someone setting up as a local manufacturer of AR receivers appearin right here on INGO not too long ago.

Such a law would also provide some protection to a hobbyist who builds a few custom guns and decides to sell them locally.

 

[dburkhead]

They already do that. I don't have a citation to give you at present, but will get one ASAP.

Blessings,
Bill

IIRC, there has been a case where a window-washing company was considered as being involved in interstate commerce because a tenant in one of the buildings they washed was in interstate commerce.

 

[El Cazador]

I'm not on board with this idea of what is made here stays here. Fact is there are no guns made in Indiana. Are there plans for guns to made in our state..I dunno. What I do know is Colts, Remingtons, Glocks, Sigs, Kimbers, Barretts, Mossbergs, Henrys, Bushmasters, Smith & Wessons, DPMS's, Springfields, Taurus's, Heckler & Koch's, Armalites, Heritage Arms, Mausers, Handi-Rifles, Savages, Wilson Combats, Les Baers... hell even Hi-points are not made in Indiana. If every state adopted this law pickens would be slim for a long time and used (unmarked) guns prices would eclispe the price of .380 ammo.

I don't think anyone is for having only in state made weapons available. The thought was to start off making weapons in state to frustrate the BATFE and Federal rules on restricting and taxing weapons multiple times as the weapon is built/manufactured and then moves, if the state has a 10th Amendment law re-declaring states rights and sovereignty. All the other makes would still be available, just still under the jurisdiction of the Feds and the BATFE (but I repeat myself). We were trying to hash out how the Feds would try and stifle the sovereignty issue and interstate purchasing and/or transporting of the made-in-state weapons.

 

[jsgolfman]

Yeah, the idea is to assert states rights. Let's provoke the beast and learn what he is willing to do to maintain his stranglehold on the people. Laws like these will establish to what lengths the fed will go.

 

[El Cazador]

Mark Levin mentioned this decision over interstate commerce in reference for another issue he was discussing, and how the government won the decision against the farmer using the interstate commerce clause, even when the farmer didn't sell his wheat at all, let alone interstate. The Feds will certainly use this decision against any attempt on the states part to ignore Federal firearm mfg laws. A little long, but important to this issue. FDR and his New Deal strikes again. No wonder the Bamster loves him so.

Wickard v. Filburn 1942

Appellant: Claude R. Wickard, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Appellee: Rosco C. Filburn
Appellant's Claim: That the federal government has constitutional authority provided in the Commerce Clause to regulate wheat production, regardless if the particular crops were intended for sale in the market.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant: Francis Biddle, U.S. Attorney General, and Charles Fahy, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyer for Appellee: Webb R. Clark
Justices for the Court: Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Robert H. Jackson, Frank Murphy, Stanley F. Reed, Owen J. Roberts, Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
Justices Dissenting: None (James Francis Byrnes did not participate)
Date of Decision: November 9, 1942
Decision: Ruled in favor of Wickard in that the federal government has broad powers under the Commerce Clause to regulate all activities that remotely may affect interstate commerce.

Significance: The ruling established an exceptionally broad interpretation of the federal government's powers under the Commerce Clause. Congress could regulate agricultural production that might affect interstate commerce, even if it is not for sale. Federal and state regulation affecting nearly all forms of agricultural production and trade in the United States grew through the next several decades.

Agricultural production in the United States, largely involving small family-owned farms, enjoyed good economic times following the American Civil War (1861–1865) through World War I (1914–1918). The 1920s saw the rise of mass productivity inspired by the industrial revolution leading to increased production. With the greater supply of farm produce, prices began to substantially decline by the end of the decade. Many family farms folded due to inadequate profits. With the stock market crash of October of 1929 and the following Great Depression through the 1930s, economic hardships for farmers further increased. Much of the public was no longer able to afford farm produce and prices fell dramatically. Without sufficient profits, foreclosures (ending a property right to pay a debt) on farms whose owners could no longer to pay their mortgages increased sharply.
In reaction to the desperate trends, farmers began organizing to save their livelihoods. Some withheld food from markets to force prices back up. Violence erupted as efforts were made to keep some farmers from delivering their produce to market. Agitation against the government for lack of support increased. Some states began passing laws making it more difficult for banks for foreclose on farms. With a national farmer strike planned for May 13, 1933, newly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–1945) signed the Agricultural Adjustment Act on May 12 to head off the protests. The act provided payments to farmers who voluntarily reduced their production. The act was part of Roosevelt's New Deal program to bring social and economic change to a struggling country.
However, like many laws passed by Congress at that time to spur economic recovery from the depression, the very conservative Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional in 1936. The Court held the federal government had no authority to become involved in what they considered local matters to be resolved by the states. In fact, the Court viewed agriculture as largely out of the realm of federal business regulation.
Beginning in 1935, Roosevelt renewed his efforts at social and economic reform with a second New Deal program. By this time, the makeup of the Supreme Court began to change. Some justices retired under political pressure from Roosevelt who sought to have a Court that would support his programs. Included in the renewed effort was the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. The act provided for increased federal control of farm production, loans to farms, farm insurance, and soil conservation to maintain farm productivity. Unlike the earlier act which paid farmers to produce less of certain crops, the second act established market quotas (limits set on something) for various farm products. Those farmers exceeding the amounts set for them by the government could be fined.
The act was immediately the subject of a Supreme Court challenge in Mulford v. Smith (1938). The revamped Court supported it by ruling in favor of tobacco-growing quotas.
Filburn's Farm

Roscoe C. Filburn was a small-time Ohio farmer raising poultry and producing dairy products. He also grew a small crop of winter wheat. Under the act, the Department of Agriculture had designated eleven acres of Filburn's land for growing wheat. A particular yield for that acreage was also set. In defiance of the set levels, in 1941 Filburn planted wheat on twelve additional acres and exceeded his yield limits. The extra planting produced 249 bushels of wheat. The department fined Filburn $117. He refused to pay and the department put a lien (the property is subject to sale to pay debts) on his wheat.
In reaction, Filburn filed a lawsuit in federal district court against U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Claude R. Wickard. Filburn sought to overturn his wheat production restrictions. He claimed that limitations on crop production was outside the federal government's power to restrict agriculture. In his defense, Filburn also claimed his excess wheat was only for use on the farm to feed animals and would not be sold at the market. The district court decided in favor of Filburn by ruling that the federal government did not have authority to fine him. Wickard appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

A Stronger Commerce Clause

By the time the case came before the Court for arguments on May 4, 1942, only one justice, Owen Roberts, remained from the earlier group which had staunchly opposed increased federal regulation proposed by Roosevelt and Congress in the New Deal programs. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Wickard, overturning the lower court's ruling. Justice Robert H. Jackson, writing for the Court, wrote that even excess agricultural produce not intended to be sold at commercial markets could still affected interstate commerce. Jackson wrote that even though the amount of Filburn's excess wheat was itself small, taken in combination with other wheat farmers there could be a significant impact on interstate commerce. If Filburn grew his own wheat, then he would not need wheat from the open market. This would hurt other farmers by causing the demand and prices for wheat to go down. Jackson wrote,

The maintenance by government regulation of a price for wheat undoubtedly can be accomplished as effectively by sustaining or increasing the demand as by limiting the supply . . . That [Filburn's] own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial [very small] by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial . . . Home-grown wheat in this sense competes with wheat in commerce . . . Congress may properly have considered that wheat consumed on the farm where grown if wholly outside the scheme of regulation would have a substantial effect in defeating and obstructing [the act's] purpose to stimulate trade . . . at increased prices.
​

The Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress may "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States." The Court had long debated whether federal commerce power authorized the federal government to only be able to control actual goods and produce being shipped between states, or if it applied to the actual production and how the kind and level of production could influence commerce. Jackson decided the difference between production and sales did not really matter,

Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is . . . not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power . . . But even if [Filburn's] activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.
​

The use of wheat quotas, even on crops not to be sold at market, was upheld by the Court.

COMMERCE CLAUSE AND THE TENTH AMENDMENT

With fear of centralized power brought by British rule, initially the states held almost total control over commercial activities under the Articles of Confederation, drawn up in 1781. However, much confusion resulted as each state established different regulations, often engaged in economic rivalries among themselves. Merchants were obviously reluctant to take economic risks in such an unpredictable and chaotic setting. Great agreement could be found to establish federal control over interstate and foreign trade when the Framers of the Constitution went to work in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. As a result, creation of the Commerce Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution drew little debate. Congress held power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States" under the Clause.
In 1791, the Tenth Amendment was ratified which recognizes states' powers. The amendment reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States . . . " The U.S. Supreme Court gave Congress broadly interpreted powers in the first case involving the Commerce Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). However, little developed from that power as often conflicting court opinions followed. With some exceptions, such as the railroads in the 1880s, respect for states' rights to regulate business under the Tenth Amendment dominated for over a century. In NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) the Court dramatically changed course. For decades following 1937 the Tenth Amendment was much less emphasized and federal regulations grew to address almost every aspect of economic activities that even remotely affected interstate commerce.


Growth of Agricultural Law

The decision in Wickard represented the greatest expansion of federal regulatory power through the Commerce Clause by the courts. Any effect on interstate commerce, even activity seemingly distant from actual commerce, fell within the scope of federal control. The important use of the Commerce Clause later involved race discrimination cases. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) the Court affirmed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and access by people of all races to commercial places used by interstate travelers.
Within this broad scope of authority, the field of agricultural law developed by the late twentieth century to stabilize and promote production of the national food supply and other farm products. Federal regulation, addressing cultivation of various crops and raising of livestock, continued under the oversight of the Secretary of Agriculture.

 

[BloodEclipse]

If Filburn grew his own wheat, then he would not need wheat from the open market. This would hurt other farmers by causing the demand and prices for wheat to go down. Jackson wrote,

So they want to use this to go after gardens?

 

[teknickle]

even when the farmer didn't sell his wheat at all, let alone interstate.

That was a vary narrow-minded and ridiculous ruling.
Jackson is an absolute MORON.
Could it have affected interstate commerce? No.
The fact is that if it was feed for animals, it didn't matter if it were wheat, beats or corn.
You could even let them free range.
So if your cattle free-range feed, does that hamper interstate commerce, because you are not purchasing wheat from out of state?
Just more proof that the socialistic and fascist ideals were instilled a long time ago.
The modern day equivalent to satellite TV content providers crying about 'lost dollars' when some poor slob uses a hacked FTA receiver to watch some free PPV. Reality is Joe 6-pack would not have ordered $600 in ppv in a month, so how is it lost revenue?
It isn't.
They are the parasites that have infected our great country, turning it into a welfare state of people expecting handouts and 'justice won' by suing for lottery type winnings. (this applies to lying corporate scum to frivolous lawsuits by senile women spilling boiling McCafe in their laps).

Sheeple should have voted for Ron Paul.

 

[econnell]

Yeee Hawww! If it passes, I'm going back home to the hills, trees and the mullets! Uhh I meant to say bullets

 

[agentl074]

Yeee Hawww! If it passes, I'm going back home to the hills, trees and the mullets! Uhh I meant to say bullets

Hey man - the mullet is coming back

 

[AGarbers]

Writing to my rep...

Just what would you call this? I want to write my representative on this but what is it called specifically? A state sovereignty law?

Glenn Beck said today that if enough states start doing this using the gun issue, it will turn the country upside down, in a good way.

 

[.40plinker]

Just what would you call this? I want to write my representative on this but what is it called specifically? A state sovereignty law?

Glenn Beck said today that if enough states start doing this using the gun issue, it will turn the country upside down, in a good way.

State's rights/ state sovereignty - it all boils down to the same thing. See my thread about contacting your legislator. You can see the e-mail I sent to mine.

 

[IndyGunworks]

We have a suppressor manufacturer here in indiana.... SAS Supressed Armament Systems!

 

[teknickle]

Just what would you call this? I want to write my representative on this but what is it called specifically? A state sovereignty law?

Glenn Beck said today that if enough states start doing this using the gun issue, it will turn the country upside down, in a good way.

It is the act of States asserting their rights under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (NOT of America).

“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ”
Often this (correctly) is interpreted to mean that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the constitution truistically falls to the states (or the people).
The argument has been used (sometimes unsuccessfully) in court cases where federal government tried to trump state law.

This comes into play where federal government tries to regulate commerce (which is where the Montana gun mfg idea came from), or limit federal funding (strong arming states--you will see a LOT of this going on RIGHT NOW ****), or forced control (like taking over agriculture via JFK EO).

** Just saw on Drudge report that Obama is going to withhold promised federal bailout money to Cali because Cali was cutting [unnecessary] jobs.

 

[Kingrat]

We have a suppressor manufacturer here in indiana.... SAS Supressed Armament Systems!

yeah their address puts their location like 2 blocks away from where i work

 

[Sailor]

This bill is so much more than gun control if it passes the Supreme Court it brings back states rights like the founders wanted it. Judge Napolitano thinks it has a good chance of passing. Watch the Glenn Beck interview. This is HUGE.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHwPHvkrGrg]YouTube - Napolitano on Beck: Montana 2nd Amendment and States Rights Part 2 (5-7-09)[/ame]