So, Alaska wants to pass a law exempting certain firearms from federal regulation. The Alaska Firearms Freedom Act (HB 186 and SB 146) would mean that 'made in Alaska' firearms would not be subject to federal regulation. There would be certain requirements, like a "Made in Alaska" stamp. The big issue, of course, is whether it is constitutional. The Legislature is relying on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. This Amendment guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the constitution. The new law would provide that "
A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce." Now, obviously, I think this is a great law. The more guns the better. However, I am not sure the Supreme Court will buy it, even after Heller. The most basic problem is that even in the finished product was not the product of interstate commerce, all of the component parts were. I mean how many steel plants are there in Alaska? The Supreme Court has interpreted the Interstate Commerce clause broadly. I hear the idea is to get these laws to the Supreme Court as soon as possible. This law has already been enacted in Montana and I understand Texas is following suit. How cool would that be? Machine guns for everyone! Power to the People.


Anonymous said…
Make my day, make my own gun, silencer etc. Have the State fight the Feds if busted. Requiring the AG to defend and fight for you in Fed Court is really gotta piss off the anti-gunners.
Yeah I love that section. Get the State on our side for once. MY lawyer is the Attorney General. So sweet.
josh said…
hahahahhahahahhahahahahah - when was the last time the commerce clause didn't work. Are you out of your f*ing mind dude? This thing is going down in a blaze of trigger unlocked fire. The potential for it to be smuggled out is enough to kill this thing. Not that I don't want one.
Anonymous said…
Why in the world would you need guns in the house with young kids running around? Guns have no place in America, they are fueling the drug wars of Mexico. If you are such a liberal you should stand up for your democratic party.
Anonymous said…
Whoa. Did I just read that correctly? Ben, get off your liberal ass and get rid of those guns! Freakin' commie bastard.

Drug wars in Mexico, huh? Yeah. They can't get guns anywhere else, those cartels. The only guns around are from America.
Anonymous said…
Your lawyer is the Attorney General? Good luck with that, seeing as how we don't have one.
Josh, I agree. The Commerce clause can 'prevent' a farmer from growing his own wheat (as you know). But I can dream. Anon: why do I need guns with young kids. Well when a brown bear is chomping on something in the back yard, a gun would be helpful. Yes, my position on guns is very liberal. I see as usual you are continuing to be a total dumbass. The AG will be coming along shortly.
Anonymous said…
Anon, guns are not fueling anything, my insatiable desire for copious amounts of coco in my nose hole ARE!
Dan said…
These series of law are completely retarded. Drafted and devised by those with zero understanding of the Constitutional reach of the Federal government. Relying on the 10th Amendment? Really? Not so great of a track record of 10th Amendment jurisprudence. Bunch of freaking idiots.
Anonymous said…
I agree that the legislation has little chance of success, but I fail to see why it is "retarded" for a state to make its position known to the court and the other states in this manner.

There was a time when "retarded" civil rights activists fought Seperate but Equal doctrine. At the time, another DA Dan would have said, "Not so great of a track record of civil rights jurisprudence. Bunch of freaking idiots."

A person with more than a "zero understanding" of constitutional law could name a number of ground shifts in our jurisprudence over the years. Indeed, wasn't it only recently that the 2nd Amend. was recognized as a fundamental right?

Anonymous said…
The commerce clause is never going to go away so long as the federal government wants to govern the states. Sure the states can make their voices heard through waste of time legislation - because why do anything meaningful down there - that appeases voters through action, even if the action is ultimately inaction. The problem is these shit-for-brains egomaniacs need to tell the voters that they are doing something, and this fills that need. These are the same legislatures that ramp up the statutes every year, that introduce more crimes, and generally make everyone in the criminal justice system cringe. I have to believe that the majority of DA's running around hate this shit just as much as the PD's, they just can't talk about it. So we have this retarded law which seeks to give a state some say in their own affairs with respect to guns. Why on earth would the fed allow AK to do this. What interest? Civil rights? No, we don't want people to have these huge fucking guns. The whole idea that we are a free people and that we can have militias is total bullshit. Red Dawn is bullshit. People having the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves from the government is bullshit. Otherwise I'd have an f-14 parked in my yard.

So tell these pricks to work on something meaningful and to stop wasting our money with retarded legislation. And what the fuck would you do with a gun like that besides waste more money. Jesus.

Anonymous said…
Who said anything about getting rid of the commerce clause? Or owning nukes, F-14s or M1 Abrams tanks? Ceding a little power pursuant to the 10th Amend. to the states to decide what kind of small arms their citizens can own seems to me like a reasonable position in light of Lopez and Heller. The fact is that our constitution changes. That change often arises out of numerous and unsuccessful challenges by the states (ie: Lochner). Simply because it is unlikely to succeed (and it is likely to fail in this case), does not necessarily mean that it is a waste of time and money. I, for one, am glad that the state is taking a position that I agree with for a change. And maybe, in time, it will work.

Anonymous said…
"The whole idea that we are a free people ... is total bullshit."

Well, I'll say that Anon got that part right. Where this person misses the mark is when they imply that no one wants to be a free person.

Popular posts from this blog