Obama Administration Takes Aim At Gun-Rights Revolt

By: Declan McCullagh
Topics: Social Issues

(CBS)

The Obama administration is raising the stakes in a fight over states' rights and firearm ownership by arguing that new pro-gun laws in Montana and Tennessee are invalid.

In the last few months, a grass-roots, federalist revolt against Washington, D.C. has begun to spread through states that are home to politically active gun owners. Montana and Tennessee have enacted state laws saying that federal rules do not apply to firearms manufactured entirely within the state, and similar bills are pending in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, and South Carolina.

Yet the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives now claims that that not only is such a state law invalid, but "because the act conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supersedes the act."

Tennessee's law already has taken effect. The BATF's letter on July 16 to firearms manufacturers and dealers in the state says "federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain within the same state."

A similar letter was sent to manufacturers and dealers in Montana, where the made-in-the-state law takes effect on October 1, 2009. Neither law permits certain large caliber weapons or machine guns, and both would bypass federal regulations including background checks for buyers and record-keeping requirements for sellers.

While this federalism-inspired revolt has coalesced around gun rights, the broader goal is to dust off a section of the Bill of Rights that most Americans probably have paid scant attention to: the Tenth Amendment. It says that "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."

Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal government's powers are limited only to what it has been "delegated," and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment "carefully reserved" some authority "to the states." That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept "all powers not expressly and particularly delegated" to the federal government.

More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce. In the 2005 case of Gonzales v. Raich, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing marijuana for her own medicinal use could have a "substantial effect on interstate commerce."

(In an impassioned dissent at the time, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.")

Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, said in an interview with CBSNews.com on Monday that he expects to be facing off against the Obama administration in court soon. "We will find the right test cases to get us in court," he said.

Marbut believes that the letters were't that meaningful because they were addressed to gun manufacturers and dealers who already are licensed by the federal government. "Those people already are under the thumb of the Feds," he said. "We've assumed they wouldn't want to put their circumstances at risk in dabbling in the state-made guns business. The people who the letters are addressed to are pretty irrelevant to the whole discussion."

Translation: If you're a gunsmith talented enough to build a made-in-Montana gun under the state's forthcoming law, give Marbut a ring. Just don't be surprised if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and Explosives is not entirely pleased.

Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.
Follow on Twitter »

139 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 139 Comments


by mecanik-2009 March 12, 2011 8:15 AM EST: Obamma knows he's wrong as usual, he's just trying to push his liberal agenda at the expense of the rights of the states and the people. He doesn't care about the Constitution or the rights it recognizes for the people or states.; Reply to this comment


by knits_seitnap September 6, 2009 4:15 PM EDT: UR_Majesty 2007......Due/due-ess.......whatever....see a "shrink" right away!!! YOU need help, seriously!!!!!; Reply to this comment


by dixt1 July 23, 2009 9:19 PM EDT: The U.S. Constitution allows us to bear arms, individually. The founders themselves said it was mainly as defense of foreign enemies and/or a "tyrannical government". The Founders KNEW about "tyrannical governments", as they had one back in England. They wanted to MAKE SURE that the citizens of this "new nation" DID NOT have to live with such a government.; Reply to this comment


by seafang July 23, 2009 7:26 PM EDT: """ by elpaulito July 21, 2009 11:42 AM EDT
So, all of you paranoid gun nuts say you need guns to protect yourselves from the govt. How do you feel about the warrentless wiretapping? Just wondering. I have a feeling you are all for having the govt spy on American citizens in the name of national security, but want your guns to protect yourselves from them. Make up your minds. please. You cant have your cake and eat it too. """

What utter nonsense; I can just go out in the stret or even into a public rest room, and listen in on people's personal telephone calls; and they are pissed off because they are worried that the government might too.

Well then why don't you stop making your inane meaningless phone conversations out in public, as if nobody has anything better to do than listen to your drivel.; Reply to this comment


by seafang July 23, 2009 7:23 PM EDT: So what do the following plain English language words mean:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be abridged."

Alternatively does it mean anything different from the following: :"The right of the people to peacably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances shall not be abridged." or do those words mean that ONLY a well regulated militia may peacably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances ? I don't mean in any legal sense; just what do those words mean in the rules of the English language.

By the way; if the second amendment does not protect the right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms; the ninth amnedment most certainly does; since it says the people retain all the rights that they don't specifically convey to the government.; Reply to this comment


by seafang July 23, 2009 7:19 PM EDT: So what do the following plain English language words mean:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State; the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be abridged."

Alternatively does it mean anything different from the following: :"The right of the people to peacably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances shall not be abridged." or do those words mean that ONLY a well regulated militia may peacably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances ? I don't mean in any legal sense; just what do those words mean in the rules of the English language.

By the way; if the second amendment does not protect the right of the people (individually) to keep and bear arms; the ninth amnedment most certainly does; since it says the people retain all the rights that they don't specifically convey to the government.; Reply to this comment


by straightmate July 23, 2009 6:19 PM EDT: This is nothing but bickering over state vs. federal rules, the real BS here is that they're wasating tax dollars and time fighting over something that really isn't that important. Obama has brains enough not to screw us on the 2nd Amendment, but meanwhile unemployment heads tward...how much again? But, HEY! Where did you get that gun? Can you have that? Is it concealed? Do you have permit? Is it loaded? Have you had a training course? BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!!!!!! God I wish they'd do something important... economy, health care, legal weed, some damn thing, ANYTHING BUT WASTE TIME WITH THIS CRAP!!!!!!!!!; Reply to this comment


by 2bgregarious4u July 23, 2009 6:07 PM EDT: It seems you are one of the demomorons who have their heads where the sun doesn't shine. You are the cause not the solution to these comments you made. There is a narcissist in the white house, who has a grandiose image of himself, just like you, and Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and Saddam. Need I go on? What good is a constitution if you let some foreign country take you over, because you like a little privacy on your phone. Get real!; Reply to this comment


by coonberry July 23, 2009 5:32 PM EDT: Our constitution was written to make sure our government could not take our rights from us. Funny how people want to change part of it but not all of it. People add to it when its not needed.; Reply to this comment


by nordeck52 July 23, 2009 5:14 PM EDT: I'm all for the States here, but as the Constitution says, Federal laws do indeed come before the laws of the individual states. This is another example of the federal government having too much power.; Reply to this comment