Pros And Cons Of Commerce Clause

The United State’s government is attempting to limit the rights of the states once again, this time while also violating the commerce clause. Now, the United States Government is trying to tell my state of Montana, among others, that we cannot create our own firearms laws and that we must follow the federal government’s. The weapons were made and sold within the state of Montana, so we should have say about what laws are placed upon these firearms. To regulate our products made in the great state of Montana, the federal government is undermining the meaning of the commerce clause. The clause has to do with interstate commerce, not intrastate; therefore, defining it as intrastate as well as interstate practically means that the 10th amendment is useless. It gives the federal government TOTAL control over the nation, and its states. …show more content…
This means that Congress and the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, but when it comes to intrastate commerce, federal government has no role. That means that the 10thAmendment comes into effect, which declares that any area where the federal government does not have jurisdiction or the constitution does not claim federal power, is left up for the state to decide.
United States v. Lopez in 1994 said that the government law that created gun-free school zones was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the law overreached the commerce clause in the constitution, because the law does not have economic motive and carrying a gun in a gun-free zone does not affect interstate commerce. Like the gun-free zone, prohibiting our Montana Firearms Act also oversteps the power of the commerce clause, because the right to regulate our firearms does not have an effect on interstate