Gary Marbut: Gun Rights and the Commerce Clause
20. Jun, 2009 
35 Comments
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, discusses gun rights and activism in Montana, the Firearms Freedom Act and the various states where this is being passed or considered, the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, litigation in federal court, the Raich case on medical marijuana, Real ID, and the judicial branch’s disdain for the 10th Amendment.
Mentioned in this show:
Montana Sport Shooting Association
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act
Minnesota Firearms Freedom Act
South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Great interview – definitely excited to hear more about this soon!
Same here. I think Gary is really on to something – and it's getting pretty good coverage in the mainstream media too. The more people talk about this, the better chance we have of making a difference.
I agree, another excellent and informative interview. Well done.
Mr. Marbut is also right about Oklahoma's interest in writing its own gun rights bill. Such a bill will most definitely pass with ridiculous ease in Oklahoma because of overwhelming popular support. But I would personally hope it would be stronger than the Montana law in the sense that it doesn't give the federal government any avenue or impression that the state of Oklahoma will ever>/i> consider federal level gun regulation legitimate under the U.S. Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma which affirms its principles.
You should consider contacting Rep. Charles Key for an interview. He has a number of interesting ideas directly or indirectly related to the tenth amendment.
Terry – Thanks so much for the feedback. My goal in doing these is to primarily offer a forum for people like Mr. Marbut to speak – it was an honor having him on the show, and I hope we'll be able work together more in the future.
Believe it or not – 3rd on my to-do list for this weekend is "Email Charles Key"
Great minds think alike, right?
Great minds think alike, right?
Oh yeah! Don't tell me — 4th and 5th on your to-do list is to contact Randy Brogdon and Randy Terrill respectively?
Keep up the great work, Michael. It's a great site, and important work that you're doing. And you're very welcome for the feedback.
Brogdon is doing a really good job there in OK. Not familiar with Terrill.
…Of course, the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has since "ruled" that certain provisions in the law (sections 7 and 9 to be exact) probably violate federal law, and has held those provisions in suspension ever since. Incidentally, the provisions which give the law real teeth. Hmm.
But anyway, Terrill is an Oklahoma legislator who has enough backbone to defend his constituents against federal invasion of their constitutional (and natural) rights. He's also advised, by invitation, other State Congresses on how to write their own immigration laws.
Terry – thanks for all the info on that. I'm not really familiar with this issue, but might be something worth looking into further.
After two great interviews with people from Montana – Rob Natelson and here with Gary Marbut, it's probably good to expand out to another state anyway!
Michael,
My idea of "reforming" America involves the very tedious process of tracing the harvest we're bearing now back to the seeds that produced it. On the immigration question, for example, the popular idea that "immigration is a federal issue exclusive to the federal government" is a false concept and an untenable position to take. It is another one of those "when you repeat something often enough people begin to believe it" absurdities. The constitution nowhere stipulates that the federal government have exclusive authority over immigration. It merely provides that the federal government establish a "uniform rule of naturalization," which is a lot different than exclusive authority over immigration. No; this immigration issue, like so many others, was originally left to the states under the ninth and tenth amendments.
Nonetheless, many of our own legislators (and our governor) were dragged kicking and screaming, in a manner of speaking, to take the position they ultimately took on immigration, which is this — the State of Oklahoma has a duty to protect its own citizens against an invasion of foreigners. They did so because the federal government, in their opinion, had abdicated its authority in the matter. While this is true insofar as the federal government has authority over the immigration issue, the understanding they lack is, as I said above, it doesn't have exclusive authority over immigration.
…But this whole thing is founded on the idea that in order for the federal government to secure to itself such exclusive authority, all it needs to do is to "occupy the field," and "intend a complete ouster." If this is true, then the restrictions placed upon the federal government in the federal constitution mean absolutely nothing. And by extension, our state constitutions which affirm the constitution's principles mean absolutely nothing. The federal government just does what it wants to do, whenever the impulse strikes it (on immigration and any number of issues), and our state constitutions are meant to affirm its power to do so.
Rest assured, this immigration fight is a tenth amendment fight all the way.
Why goto Fed courts…to hell with them…pass your state laws and enforce them….seems simple to me..
If the feds dont like it let them take the state to court
Jimmy – it's a great point. Something I asked Gary about in the interview too. I liked his response (paraphrasing, of course!) "Will the people of montana say no and resist the federal government? I sure think so! And, we're working on strategies to assert our rights without the permission of a federal judge"
That's the way to do it in my opinion – go to court to get the media coverage, and still say no when the judge rules against liberty….which they generally do.
(Formerly posted as "Trouble". New board setup made me change.)
Good going on the interview Michael! There's a real undercurrent on this and a number of other issues. One congressman (I forget who) actually quoted the Powerline blog today on Fox regarding the Healthcare bill.
When Congress starts reading the blogs maybe they'll begin to get a clue. It would be quite nice if the real meaning behind the Commerce Clause was restored to its rightful place.
Thanks for the feedback, Trouble…er…I mean Darkwolfe! A number of great interviews are being lined up for coming weeks….as always, looking forward to your input once they're live.
Thanks again to all of you for more great feedback on our second podcast! We're refining our format and your comments make it a better show.
Look for a very distinguished guest in next weeks installment!
B
Bryce,
Indeed I'm personally looking for a "very distinguished guest" in next week's installment. I mean, you've set the bar so high'n'all, what are we to expect in the upcoming?
In case you haven't guess yet, Terry – our next guest will be OK Rep. Charles Key – unless something comes up (and things often change with reps), we'll be recording on Monday AM.
After two great interviews with people from MT, I thought it was time to move a little further south. I'm definitely looking forward to it!
Ah! I figured as much. Thank you for the heads up. Looking forward to it (and telling all of my friends.).
Gary Marbut is an excellent example of the unifying nature of our Tenth Amendment movement- a gun rights activist (typically a right wing issue) who also supports medical marijuana legalization (typically a leftist position).
Know the truth! Read “Gun control” at poorclydesalmanac.info.
Ken, I don’t have time to do any extra reading right now – care to give a brief overview of what you’re promoting on this topic?
Bryce, excellent point. As someone who has been voting Democrat since I was old enough to vote (just over 10 years), I have been trying to convince all of these people in the party who call themselves Liberals (like my own brother), that federalism, the 10th Amendment, and States’ rights in general, actually benefit social liberals as much as they benefit conservatives and libertarians. They get so angry when you tell them this.
We’re a federation of sovereign States, not a singular unitary nation-state, as so many of them seem to believe. Our Founders understood that a “one size fits all” centralized government is incompatible with liberty, just as democracy is. So they gave us a republic of States, united by a basic set of principles, but self-governed by their own unique people. This system of government would ensure that liberal States (like CA) and conservative States (like GA) would not have to live under laws which they felt were oppressive and against their own values.
2010 might be the first time I refuse to back any Dems. This party has abandoned the Constitution and has become hostile to liberty.
Ravi, Well put. My knee jerk reaction to all liberal Democrats is that they are all either looking for a free lunch or attempting to take control of the people by trying to intice them into taking one from the government funded by our money/productivity.
Has anyone read the article “Gun Control” to learn that federal gun control does not, in fact or in law, apply in any one of the 50 Union States? Cheers.
Terrill is the primary author of OK's immigration bill, H.B. 1804. You know, the bill that he (Terrill) told the nation's (and the state's) most powerful and influential opponents thereof (the U.S. and Okla. Chambers of Commerce) basically to take a proverbial hike when they raised questions as to the bill's supposed violation of "federal law," and their recommendation to him and the Okla. Congress to cease and desist in pursuing its passage.
I actually got into a similar fight with the owner of the Ok. lawfirm representing them at an immigration conference held in my area in Feb., 2008. The representative couldn't answer my very simple question: "Why do you say that the new Ok. law violates federal law?; on what basis do you make this claim?"