AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

If you aren't too familiar with interstate commerce, I found this excellent analysis of the original purpose for the federal government's power of regulating interstate commerce. The power to regulate was not meant to be on the actual items themselves, but the imposition of tariffs by states on each other and with foreign countries. If State A imports widgets from State B and State C, it would be harmful to state relations to allow State A to impose a tariff on the goods from State B and not on State C. State B could retaliate on State A and C with its own tariffs. It doesn't matter what the widget is, it is the actual "commerce" and "trade" that needs to be regulated.

The federal government has developed lots of powers using interstate commerce as a justification. Let's look at the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In United States vs. Lopez, the government argued it could ban firearms in schools because possession of a firearm there would lead to violent crime which would cause damages, increase insurance rates and then spread to the greater economy there by affecting interstate commerce. The Supreme Court struck this down in 1995 because it gave the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate anything that might eventually lead to violent crime. The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution and the court found that possession of a handgun was not a commercial activity or even remotely related to one.

So what's all this have to do with Montana? The law Montana passed makes firearm regulations justified by interstate commerce moot. If the federal government wanted to impose a 50 cent tax on each round of ammunition, it would use interstate commerce as a justification because that ammunition could move over state lines. Remember, there is no enumerated power given to Congress that specifically gives it the power to regulate ammunition. The Montana law says that if the ammunition is manufactured, sold, possessed and used in Montana, then the federal government has absolutely zero power to regulate that ammunition.

This is big. Utah and Texas have similar laws going through their state legislatures. States are telling the federal government that they want them to go the hell away. This isn't just about firearm laws either. The DEA has been prosecuting people here in California for marijuana violations even though the state okay'd medical marijuana over a decade ago. A similar law passed here could say that all marijuana grown, sold and used for medicinal purposes in California is exempt from federal law. This isn't about what issues you agree or disagree with, this is all about state rights and fighting back against unenumerated powers held by the federal government.

I truly believe the founding fathers never intended the government to wield such far reaching powers and any movement back towards the idea of putting the federal government in a box and leaving everything outside that box up to the states is okay with me. It will be interesting to see what happens with these laws and how things go down in the Supreme Court when they're eventually challenged. Something tells me the bureaucrats won't cede their power quietly.

Before you read any further, read this article by Al Rantel. Al is a gay talk show host on KABC here in Los Angeles and when it comes to issues of homosexuality I actually look to him for inside information, much like I look to Larry Elder for insight into the black community.

Under the law same-sex couples have the same rights as everyone else. This proposition isn't about ending discrimination, it is about trying to make same-sex marriages socially acceptable. If this doesn't pass then the same people that oppose this amendment are free to get their own amendment up on the ballot and let the people decide. The people had decided in 2000 to define marriage as between a man and woman, but four judges made short work of that mandate from the masses.

I'm going to follow Al Rantel's lead on this one and vote YES for Prop 8.

Judge Stevens - 88, Ginsburg - 75, Kennedy - 72, Scalia - 72 and Breyer - 70

There's a good chance the next president will be nominating replacements for 1 or 2 of them. Any of McCain's nominees would be far superior to anyone Obama would put up. You might not like everyone about the McCain, but he sure looks good next to the alternative.

Read the entire dissent, starting on page 68, written by Stevens in DC vs Heller to be thoroughly disgusted. Here's just a quick tidbit:

As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia.

That's right, 45% of the Supreme Court doesn't think you should be able defend yourself in your home with a handgun. Suzanna Hubb is a perfect example of what happens when law abiding citizens aren't able to protect themselves. If you haven't heard her story you must listen to her tell it:

The Supreme Court ruled on Heller vs DC today and pretty much said that an individual has the right to own a gun. From the opinion:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditional lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The decision doesn't invalidate regulations like registration requirements, but it certainly opens the door for legal action against laws that limit the use of firearms by law abiding citizens. I'm not a gun nut but this how I feel about the whole situation:

Criminals don't obey gun laws, they just leave their victims defenseless. I'm glad I have the ability to defend myself in my home because I don't want to be at the mercy of some criminal threatening my life and property. If that moment ever comes the police won't be able to help. When seconds matter, the police are minutes away.

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

Pretty good read that illustrates the difference between America and the rest of the world. I'm grateful that the Constitution prevents our government from telling us what we can't say, what not to think and what not to do. God forbid if that ever happens we'll still have our guns to take back our country. Always remember that the Constitution does not grant us revocable privileges; our rights are there to protect us from the government.

The article ends with a good quote from Mark Steyn:

"What we're learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins," Steyn added. "Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world."