[quote]pushharder wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Again, this will not hold up if it reaches the federal courts. Not unless there is a new make-up and they are willing to overturn precedence.
i would not want to test this.
If you were arguing for the federal government how would you do it?
How could you possibly invoke the commerce clause which is predicated upon interstate activities?
And how would you dismiss the Tenth Amendment?[/quote]
I can tell you they do this on a regular basis. It started back during the Great Depression, I believe. There was a cap on wheat production. A farmer was growing his own wheat for his own use. He was not selling any of it, even within his state.
The fed’s arguement was that him producing his own wheat meant that he was not buying wheat on the market, thus effecting supply and demand and pricing of wheat sold intersate.
In this case they can just site precedence, but if they have to argue their case, I am sure it would go something like this:
Guns made in MT and sold only in MT, effects the ability of manufactures in other states selling guns in MT. If guns made in MT are not regulated, it puts their interstate competitors at a competitive disadvantage.
I don’t agree with any of this, and think it’s a disgrace to what was intended in the interstate commerse clause. I also believe irregularities in competitive advantage and regulation was precisly the reason the founders wanted to protect states’ rights. States could try different policy and it would be fairly easy to assess the success compared to policy in other states.
I am just pointing out the reality of the situation. I am sure you could find info on this by searching “abuse of the interstate commerse clause” or something like that.
http://www.liberty-page.com/foundingdocs/constitution/studycommerce.html
I didn’t have the details of the wheat producer quite right, but same outcome. Some info here.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
I can tell you they do this on a regular basis. It started back during the Great Depression, I believe. There was a cap on wheat production. A farmer was growing his own wheat for his own use. He was not selling any of it, even within his state.
[/quote]
I would like to know what law allows the federal government to dictate what a man may or may not grow on his own land for his own use, and what the penalty is for violating that law.
Doesn’t sound very American to me.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
dhickey wrote:
I can tell you they do this on a regular basis. It started back during the Great Depression, I believe. There was a cap on wheat production. A farmer was growing his own wheat for his own use. He was not selling any of it, even within his state.
I would like to know what law allows the federal government to dictate what a man may or may not grow on his own land for his own use, and what the penalty is for violating that law.
Doesn’t sound very American to me.[/quote]
Wickard v. Filburn
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Off the subject but I know some/many of you will like this:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MT_XGR_RED_LIGHT_CAMERA_MTOL-?SITE=MTKAL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-05-05-20-39-58 [/quote]
i have never fallen victim to one of these, but don’t like the intent. I think most traffic laws should not be enforced. Speed limits, rolling stops, ect. I think stiff penalties should be issued for accidents and events traffic laws seek to prevent. This would prevent traffic violations serving as a revenue source and nothing else.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, don’t too many of y’all git to likin’ Montana too much. We don’t want a bunch of new folks movin’ here. Stay out![/quote]
It’s all right, Idaho’s just as good.
“Painted on one side of our Sunday school wall were the words, God Is Love. We always assumed that these three words were spoken directly to the four of us in our family and had no reference to the world outside, which my brother and I soon discovered was full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the farther one gets from Missoula, Montana.”
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Freedom country.
IrishSteel wrote:
Well I’m packing up my game and I’m a head out west . . .
Yup, I’m with you, Irish. It’s our sacred duty to counterbalance the creeping liberalism in such places as Missoula, Montana and Moscow, Idaho.
Just gotta squirrel away a bit more coin and I’m on my way.[/quote]
Ya simply can’t argue with a picture that beautiful. There’s a damn good reason Montana is known as “Big Sky country”. Fuck, I need a vacation to the wilderness now… I miss mountains and wildlife.
If I were the current Attorney General, I would disallow this new law for religious reasons: namely the fact that “State of Montana” is an anagram for “Too Fat Satan Men.”
We can’t have obese Satanic men with guns running amok in this great nation of ours. Think of the children.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
And sure, they eat elk and bison, but you don’t find it at the supermarket.
mike
Mike, you may have hit upon one of the primary differences between the two ideologies. As Ted Nugent says, “before ya grill it, ya gotta kill it.”
Conservatives are comfortable doing their own killing, whereas liberals would rather someone else do their killing for them.[/quote]
Excellently said!!
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
And sure, they eat elk and bison, but you don’t find it at the supermarket.
mike
Mike, you may have hit upon one of the primary differences between the two ideologies. As Ted Nugent says, “before ya grill it, ya gotta kill it.”
Conservatives are comfortable doing their own killing, whereas liberals would rather someone else do their killing for them.
Funny you mention that. Although I’d always been pro-gun (even though I didn’t own any up to about 05 or so) I’d been anti-hunting. In my head it wasn’t sporting. Mind you this was from someone who had never hunted before.
Than one day I’m channel surfing and saw the Nuge on TV talking to a guy about hunting who had my attitude. So Nuge says to the guy, “Do you eat meat?”
“Yeah”
“Well, then you’re just hiring an assassin to do your job for you.”
All of a sudden a lightbulb went off in my head. It wasn’t a CFL either, those take a second. So I decided that if I were to be a meat eater I had the responsibility to kill my food at least once. Otherwise I had no business eating meat. Besides, I figured that a deer running around in the woods before I shoot it was a lot happier than some pathetic cow.
Since then I’ve gone out hunting every year. I’ve yet to bag anything. Hell I’ve only even see game once out of all the hours I spent out hunting. I’ve quickly learned that it’s a hell of a lot more work and more sporting than I’d figured.
mike[/quote]
Proud of you for the intellectual honesty - good call Mike!
[quote]dhickey wrote:
Again, this will not hold up if it reaches the federal courts. Not unless there is a new make-up and they are willing to overturn precedence.
i would not want to test this.[/quote]
Well - it will end up in the federal courts before too long - that should be very interesting to watch the play out on this one
[quote]pushharder wrote:
By the way, don’t too many of y’all git to likin’ Montana too much. We don’t want a bunch of new folks movin’ here. Stay out![/quote]
Aww, come’on PUSH, ever since I played cowboy in CO, I’ve wanted to move to Montana . . .