Gary,

I am not a lawyer.... but,

I thought over all the arguments went well overall. There are three things which stick out for me as a matter of principle, not as a procedural matter.

1. Nobody is arguing with the Federal Government that it has legitimate authority to regulate (to make regular, put in good order) interstate commerce. The opportunity presented itself to sate BOLDLY that interstate commerce begins at the State border. Such a point was approached when the judge asked about a man coming from California to buy Gary's guns and Gary sells them to him. Such as sale MIGHT be construed as interstate, more accurately, the man who bought the guns for importation back into California would be engaging in interstate commerce. The opportunity passed without elaboration.

2. In the Raich case in California, the "fungibility" question came up. In that case the Supreme Court said that Marijuana grown and sold in California is generally indistinguishable from Marijuana grown and sold elsewhere, and therefor it may be regulated by the Federal Government (I note again, that the term "regulate" never meant prevent, deny, disparage). No one made the point that it is impossible to stamp "Made in California" on a Marijuana bud. That decision is not a good one anyway, in my opinion, because, if it was grown in California, and sold there, and there is NO evidence that it was imported, the presumption should be of the challenged party's innocence.

3. It is true, that someone could set up a machine shop in Utah and manufacture a Buckaroo rifle and put a roll mark on it which reads, "Made in Montana". That would be, 1.) a patent infringement, 2.) demonstrated intent to engage in interstate commerce, and thence prosecutable, and 3.) easily identifiable as a forgery, unless the ATF tech branch DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS DOING.

It seems to me that lawyers get lost in the minutiae and forget principle much of the time. Overturning legal doctrines, especially phony ones, must be done on principle, not on a twist of legal maneuvering, or word-smithing.

The Federal Government has been exceeding its bounds because our grandparents allowed it to happen. The fact that the feds have gotten away with it is being used as a reason to continue. It needs to be stated often, and loudly, that Congress has only those powers delegated to it in Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. This was a GRANT of authority by the people of the States to do a list of eighteen things, and the "necessary and proper" things for carrying out those tasks. That tasking was amended by the Tenth Amendment!

The doctrine established by Wickard v. Filburn is a fraud and MUST be brought down. Otherwise, we do not have a Union of States. We have a federated empire driven from the District of Criminals.

Just my thoughts.

Be well,

Bruce H Nelson
Proprietor,
Montana Ordnance and Supply