Confused Voter

[Bowhunter]

With some of the current legislation I find myself on the fence as to which way I should lean.  On one hand we have the "Firearms Freedom Act" which asserts that the individual states, not the bureaucrats in Washington, have the right to manage in-state issues and actions.  Currently Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Tennessee, and Montana are, or have adopted the FFA in one form or another.  You have to smile a little when a state like Montana tells the Fed's, "You aren't going to regulate sales on firearms manufactured in Montana when they are sold to a Montana citizen".  I'd like to see my state of MN take the same action (although highly unlikely given the number of bleeding heart liberals here).  There is another side to this coin that concerns me.  At the moment we are anticipating the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. Chicago, which will decide whether Second Amendment rights in the federal constitution trump state anti-gun laws.  General opinion has the decision in favor of McDonald.  Considering that two of the cities with the highest crime in the US (Chicago & DC) have the toughest gun laws on the books, it is apparent that gun control doesn't work.  As a collective group of voters, which way should be be voting?  On one hand, if the Supreme Court strikes down the ability for cities and states to legislate away our guns, that's a good thing.  This would serve notice to NY, CA, WI, IL, and others that they can no longer legislate away the ability for us to protect ourselves and our families.  If states get their way via the FFA, then couldn't a state just as easily say that they can ignore a Supreme Court ruling and outlaw firearm possession for citizens of that state?  I am in favor of the FFA and certainly hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of McDonald, but wonder if we are backing ourselves into a corner?

[Pathfinder]

Please allow me to try to help you out of the confusion.

Montana et al, and their FFAs are about the constitution. In other words, the 10th Amendment applies or it does not. The commerce laws must be subservient to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

MacDonald vs Chicago is also about the Constitution, namely either the 2A applies to the states as well as the Feds, or it does not.

Both are consistent with each other. Always look to the Constitution - as written and amended rather than legal decisions (such as Kelo which clearly violates the Constitution) and your confusion should be easily dispelled.

Welcome aboard DRTV, BTW. Swing on over to the new member thread and introduce yourself, and get to know some of the others hereabouts.

[Solus]

The Constitution has been interrupted as giving the Feds the power to stick their noses in Interstate Commerce...commerce between one state and another.  However, the Constitution goes not give the feds the power to meddle with Intrastate Commerce...commerce conducted wholly with in a state.  This is the area the FFA addresses


The McDonald v. Chicago deals with the power of local governments to violate the Rights Of The People enumerated and protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[Bowhunter]

Gentlemen, thanks for your insight!  Helps clear up some confusion and give me some additional perspective.