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