Rethinking Federal Power: The Machine Gun Case to Watch

In his episode we dive into a major new federal lawsuit, Temple Gun Club v. Bondi, which takes a different approach than most modern Second Amendment challenges. Instead of focusing solely on the Second Amendment, this case targets the very foundation of federal authority — the Commerce Clause. 

subscribe to my newsletter

Follow this link and get $25 in ammo.

Fountain Podcast App
Follow me on Fountain


Follow twitter @JeffDowdle
Follow me on Truth Social - @JeffDowdle

Convention of States Project
Presearch search engine sign up.
Brave Browser

Find our Representative
email me at jeff@livetoshoot.com

Transcript

0:16

Welcome to the Live Shoot podcast. My name is Jeff Do. I've been a licensed firearm dealer for the last 18 years, and this podcast talk about all things related Second Amendment, as well as anything else going in the World Sports Story or. Anything else that I find interesting. So today we're digging into something that we already talked about earlier, a couple weeks ago. Machine guns or really what I can, what I prefer to call full auto machine guns to me is a odd naming for'em, but they are just full auto guns. And so right now, historically we've had a over the last several years, there's been a pattern. Devices, accessories, firing components that were once considered perfectly legal were suddenly being reclassified. Bump stocks, force reset, triggers certain trigger systems, even pieces of metal the size of a credit card with engravings on'em, everything thing. Would that don't actually meet the statutory requirements of a machine gun or treated like they were. And that's where the real issue comes in, because when definitions start shifting, the law stops being predictable. And when law isn't predictable, your rights aren't secure. Now. Here's where things are getting interesting. We had a story a couple weeks ago about two states, West Virginia and Kentucky, that are coming at a novel legislative approach to attacking the full auto problem and making it to where the, their states can actually sell new, full autos to their citizens and transfer'em to them. Circumventing the NNFA process. Now, there's a new case right here in my state, Texas Temple Gun Club versus Bondi. It's been filed out the Northern District of Texas, which is. A district that I'm in. And what's interesting about this ca case is what it doesn't rely on. And this is unusual most modern challenges are going straight to the second Amendment. They ask, is this restriction consistent with the text of the Constitution? Is there a historical tradition supporting it? If not. It should fail, but this case takes a different route. Instead of focusing primarily on the Second Amendment, it leans heavily on the 10th Amendment. And this kind of goes back to some old school ways of approaching it. And more importantly,'cause what it's doing is it's challenging the federal government's reliance on something called the Commerce Clause. So what is the Commerce Clause? Let's slow down and let's try and make it real clear. Commerce Clause comes from Article one, section eight of the Constitution, and it gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states. That's it. At least that's what was originally meant. The idea was simple. If goods are moving cross state lines, if you're talking about trade between states and the federal government can step in and regulate that, but over time, the definition has expanded. A lot today, the Commerce Clause is used to justify a huge portion of federal law, including most federal gun regulation, and here's where it gets contribution. The argument has evolved to say that. Even something entirely within one state, something you made, bought and kept within your own state can still fall under the federal control if it's something affects interstate commerce, even indirectly. Now think about that. That's a massive expansion of power and that's what this lawsuit is challenging. And if we can challenge the commerce clause, we could revert a lot of power away from the federal government back to our states. Because if you remember, the constitution tells. The US government, what they can do. Then the 10th Amendment says if we didn't tell you can do it, then you can't do it. Okay. We've shifted our thinking though, that the go, we gotta tell, come up with the things that the, that the that the states can do versus the government. Most laws are revert, written in the words, the laws are written about what you can't do, and that's the way people tend to think about it. But really when you look at the Constitution, if it's not those pages, government can't do it. But they have reached and expanded, and grabbed and got more power through this commerce law. Here's what's being made in this case, federal Gun Law, specifically under. 18 US Code 9 22 are only valid if they're justified under the Commerce Clause. But if the Commerce Clause doesn't actually give the government that authority, then the law itself doesn't stand. Not because it violates you or your rights directly, but'cause it was never a valid use of federal power to begin with. That's a fundamentally different angle. It's not saying the law is unconstitutional'cause it infringes your rights. It's saying the law is un constitutional because the federal government had no authority to pass it. So why is it a big deal? Lemme be straight with you. This is not the argument most people expected. A lot of folks believe mach full auto machine gun restrictions would fall under a direct Second Amendment challenge. But it's'cause historically there is no finding a bans on owning weapons. If you could afford a cannon, you could own a cannon. If you could outfit a ship, you could own a warship. There was no category too dangerous for civilians. So naturally, many assume that would be their first, the first dominoe. This lawsuit is going about after the foundation instead the authority. And at that foundation, ah, cracks. It just doesn't affect one law. It affects everything built on top of it. Like we were saying now ties us back to where we started. It's federal government is stretching definitions, calling more and more things, machine guns, at the same time, relying on an increasingly stretched interpretation of the commerce clause. You got two expanding bowens juries happening at once. Expand definition, expand authority, and that combination means overreach into our lies. So what happens next? This case just getting started, that's precedent, goes back decades of supports federal authority under the common court, the clause. But courts evolve interpretation of, and we've already seen signals, especially in recent years, that some judges are willing to revisit those older assumptions. So this case. It's one to watch closely. So at the end of the day, it isn't just about machine guns, it's about limits. Why can't the federal, what can the federal government regulate? What can it redefine and where, if anywhere, are the boundaries? Because if the boundaries don't hold, then it's just one category of firearms at risk. It's everything. So if you found this interesting, valuable share it with people we'll keep you, we'll keep watching this. We'll keep watching the things happening in West Virginia and Kentucky as it turns to these full auto machine gun type situations. But share this podcast like it subscribe. Whatever it is you do, give it a five star rating. I appreciate it. But. Until then, stay informed. Stay ready, and always, fight. I'm Jeff Doddle and I will talk to you next week. Okay.