Federal arrogance
The United States Constitution seems pretty clear to me most of the time. The federal government, on the other hand, has a lot of trouble interpreting and following the highest law of the land in a manner I can fathom.
Here is the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I may be wrong but as far as I know the federal government of the United States has no legal authority to regulate much of anything that happens inside the borders of a sovereign state. That is, unless that state asks for help in regulating this, that or the other matter. Perhaps I’m wrong about this, in which case, please explain how I’m wrong. It might help me decide to live somewhere else in the near future.
You see, I much prefer the idea of diffused power to the idea of a strong central authority that micromanages the lives of its subjects. I don’t want to be thought of as a subject. I want to have choices. A country with 50 distinct political flavors and 50 different approaches to solving problems is inestimably more palatable to a man like me than one where people I have no access to can reach out and jail me on a whim at any given moment for violation of some dictate or another.
Let’s talk for a moment about federal arrogance. If I am right, and all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the people of the states themselves then how a letter from a federal employee to gun distributors in Tennessee, a sovereign state, is acceptable? The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate weapons inside the borders of a state. Yet we have a career bureaucrat lecturing weapons dealers in the state on how the federal government and not the local population will decide what is and is not acceptable when it comes to citizens and firearms. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Assistant Director Carson W. Carroll warns Tennessee gun dealers in a letter written in his glass and concrete tower that:
The act purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories and ammunition manufactured in the state and which remain in the state from most federal firearms laws and regulations,” Carroll wrote. “However, because the act conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes the act and all provisions of the (federal) Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act and their corresponding regulations continue to apply.
This is the kind of thinking and action that almost guarantees another American civil war in the 21st century. The federal government’s many arms already routinely ignore the documents that are supposed to bind them. The federal government is supposed to have control over interstate commerce, not regulation of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. There is no constitutional mandate for stepping into state business. Where does the federal government derive its authority to legislate anything that goes in inside a state’s borders in the first place?
The federal government gets around this by pretending that interstate commerce is somehow tied to how many rounds a pistol magazine should hold or what the maximum percentage of alcohol should be in beer. In order to ensure compliance with the vast array of illegal rules that the feds have created a choking mechanism is needed. In the case of tax compliance the government chokes employers. In the case of weapons compliance the government chokes dealers. Dealers must obtain a Federal Firearms License to operate a successful arms dealership in the U.S. This unconstitutional requirement forces you to sign documents giving up your right to due process and at the same time levies taxes on every weapon you buy or sell. The ATF can search and seize any property you own at any time for any reason and it does so all the time. In fact, the ATF has a reputation for harassing, bullying and intimidating gun dealers.
Over time the arrogance of men and women you’ve never met deciding exactly how much self-defense is acceptable for you, the law abiding citizen, makes a lot of people consider being a little less law abiding. The real point though, is that America would be a better place to live if the feds stopped blundering around stepping on everyone else’s toes all the time. The constant arrogance generate letters like this one:
I am not an FFL holder. I never wanted to put myself at the mercy of your unconstitutional, bully-boy agency whose malfeasances, misfeasances, perjuries and deadly misadventures are legendary. I have observed first hand your agency’s ability to cow FFL holders into not fighting you in court when you violate your own rules. Your agents often push the line of what constitutes statutory compliance with the threat that they will come back with a raid party if the FFL holder doesn’t knuckle under. Having my business, my livelihood, my family’s safety and my life at the whim of brutal thuggery such as exemplified by “Waco Jim” Cavanaugh at the time of the Trader’s Gun Shop raid here in Birmingham, or Jody Keeku’s railroading of David Olofson, never interested me.
Go Google David Olofson. It’s worth your time.
Similar Posts:
- Checks, balances and the 50 sovereign states
- Anti-gunner is the new attorney general
- Barack Obama: end these federal wars
- Criminalizing self-defense and degrading rule of law
- Marine arrested for bringing concealed gun to his college
Print This Post
|
The Interstate Commerce Clause is the entry point for much of the interference. We need to bring back the Articles of Confederation. I agree with you when you suggest that there will be a Civil War. After watching the G20 and hearing the words "Unlawful Assembly", I think it's too far gone to be saved.
What would bringing back Articles of Confederation do for us? I'm really curious so if you can, please post a detailed answer. If I like it, I'd publish it as a guest blog here if you want.
Bringing back the AoC would take us back to a system that was flawed, but at least the flaws are well-known, and likely to be on the side of personal freedom (from which we can always rebuild) as opposed to on the side of no freedom (from which we can't do much, if anything).
IE, the two most commonly cited flaws in the AoC were these:
* No standardized currency. So what? The dollar is eff'd, and we both know it. So do our trading partners. Let each state figure it out.
* No rules for inter-state trade. Clearly (as you pointed out) the rules are too numerous and are being abused and construed to the point of being a target of international ridicule. Let's start from scratch.
* Federal Government had too much inertia. Again, I say it doesn't matter. I'm not suggesting we operate under the AoC forever. But we need to stop the monster dead in its tracks. And we need to do it yesterday. We can keep the AoC for five years until the states that want to participate can reconvene a new continental congress and possibly re-draft the Constitution with the benefit of hindsight over the last 230 years.
Let's face it: The Federal government (in its legal form) is already a shambles, and is going to continue to eat us alive. It's going to be destroyed, one way or another. Bringing back the AoC would be a stop-gap to prevent a complete failure in the national defense (which the AoC provided for) while the state's get their s*** in a pile.
As best I can see it, the other options for reform are predicated on the assumption that we have both the time and the resources to waste in fighting the inertia of a system that doesn't care what we want. It's time to scrap it. Quickly and surgically.