There’s a whole of shaking going on, and big government types don’t like it.  From the Washington Times, Mont. gun law challenges federal powers

A new Montana gun law puts the state at the forefront of a national bid to restore states’ rights by attacking up to a century of federal court decisions on Washington’s power.

Two other states – Alaska and Texas – have had favorable votes on laws similar to Montana’s, declaring that guns that stay within the state are none of the feds’ business. More than a dozen others are considering such laws, and more-general declarations of state sovereignty have been introduced this year in more than 30 legislatures.

The federal courts may not respond well to these laws in the short term, but backers who acknowledge this say that regardless, they intend for the laws to change the political landscape in the long term. They hope these state laws will undercut the legitimacy of contrary federal law – as has happened with medicinal marijuana – and even push federal courts to bend with the popular wind.

Montana law proponents say the real target of this legislation is courts’ interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause:

“The Interstate Commerce Clause has grown and grown until the government asserts authority over everything under the sun,” said Mr. Marbut, who wrote the original firearms legislation. “How much water you have in your toilet. Almost all environmental laws. Maybe one-third of all federal regulations are asserted under the Commerce Clause.”

…In that sense, the law is only nominally about guns. “Guns are the object, but states’ rights are the subject,” he said.

Five states have their own version of the law, although it hasn’t passed their full Legislatures:  Alaska, Texas, Minnesota, South Carolina and Tennessee.  Several more are considering it:  Georgia, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Washington.

Opponents don’t want the all-powerful-Federal-government boat rocked:

Mr. Helmke added that the courts were unlikely to side with Montana, describing the Interstate Commerce Clause as “settled federal law.”

“In effect, Montana’s trying to turn back the clock to pre-New Deal times, or even pre-Civil War times,” Mr. Helmke said.

Hole in one, sir.  That’s what state sovereignty and Tea Party movements are about, getting the country back to Founding Principles.

Advertisements