Michigan v. Illinois: Is this a legal dichotomy?

This year the Montana Legislature approved the bill and the plan was signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer that provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required. Several states are either implementing or considering similar laws.

In essence it says that in matter of the Second Amendment, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to limit the rights when the guns (or accessories) are manufactured and used within the state.

Meanwhile in Illinois, gun rights advocates have brought a challenge to Chicago's sweeping ban on handguns to the US Supreme Court, based on the previous ruling that stripped most of the gun control laws in the District of Columbia.

In essence they argue that in matter of the Second Amendment, States have no right to restrict the ownership of guns and/or gun accessories beyond what the Federal Government decides is the absolute minimum.

Either of my summations may be off, since I’m not a lawyer, but they’re pretty close to the mark.

I support the Second Amendment and see gun ownership as as much a necessity to our freedom as Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of the Press are. But I can’t help wonder if the two cases are asking for the opposite things, rather than the same thing.

After looking it over, though I see that the conclusion would be that the Federal Government would set a minimum standard for ownership (for example convicted criminals may not own guns, and private citizens may not own automatic weapons) which states may not add to, but states may ignore for guns which never leave that state. It would be asking the Federal Government to allow limits on itself (not something it’s ever been prone to do with much relish) and curb the power of Liberal states to restrict the rights of their citizens (also not something the “Powers That Be” exercise often or with mush enthusiasm)

It actually is looking like both decisions (the Montana law is expected to be challenged, which would eventually bring it to the SCOTUS) with likely pass, something that would have only happened with a solid conservative majority on the SCOTUS. A majority we may lose very soon.

I can also see the SCOTUS saying, “If it crosses state lines, then it’s under our authority and you can’t add or take away from the usage/right we prescribe. However if it never leaves the state, then you can make any laws you want.” That would in essence tell Illinois they are free to restrict the ownership of guns, that have never left the state. A more or less moot practice inasmuch as Illinois citizens would still be free to buy and own guns made out of state. But it would make a consistency between the two arguments.

Expect to hear cries of hypocrisy whenever Liberals catch on to the superficial conflict between the two decisions.

Posted by Danny Carlton at October 5, 2009 6:55 AM