We know that individuals can defy the law. Can a state legislature defy the law? When it comes to the gun issue, apparently it can.

I refer to the extraordinary legislation passed into law by the states of Montana and Tennessee declaring that guns or ammunition manufactured and retained entirely within the borders of those states are “not subject to federal law.” Apparently, similar legislation has been introduced in Texas, Alaska, Minnesota, South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Colorado.

Can a state unilaterally exempt its homemade products from the reach of federal law? Only if it is prepared to defy the United States Constitution.

Under the Constitution, Congress has certain enumerated powers, including the power “to regulate Commerce . . . among the several states.” In its 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle, first set out in the Depression-era case of Wickard v. Filburn, that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate purely intrastate activity involving a product, if it rationally concludes that to leave such activity unregulated would undercut its regulation of interstate commerce in the product. In Gonzales, the Supreme Court upheld Congressional power to ban the possession and use of marijuana, even by a California resident who cultivated her own marijuana and used it for personal medical purposes within the state entirely in accord with state law.

There is no doubt that, under these Supreme Court rulings, Congress has the power to regulate the manufacture and sale of guns that never cross the borders of Montana or Tennessee. Although some may disagree with this reading of the Commerce Clause, the more fundamental point is that, under our Constitution, the scope of federal Commerce Clause power is not for individual states to decide. In addition to misunderstanding the Commerce Clause, legislators in Montana and Tennessee seem prepared to defy the Supremacy Clause, under which federal enactments “shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . .” As the High Court made clear in Gonzales, “the Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail,” meaning that “state action cannot circumscribe Congress’ plenary commerce power.” The Gonzales Court expressly rejected Justice Thomas’ radical suggestion in dissent that “States possess the power to dictate the extent of Congress’ commerce power . . . .” Isn’t that exactly what Montana and Tennessee think they have done?

The idea that states can unilaterally “opt out” of federal law is not new. Its ancestors range from the 18th century Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, who thought only the states should have the power to regulate commerce, to John C. Calhoun’s nullification doctrine that led to the Civil War, to Governor George Wallace standing in the doorway defying the Attorney General of the United States, who was enforcing a federal order requiring the enrollment of black students at the University of Alabama. In short, on the issue of gun control, Montana and Tennessee have cast their lot with the historic “losers” in the great constitutional debate over state vs. federal power.

The enforceability of federal gun laws against purely intrastate conduct in Montana and Tennessee seems destined for the federal courts. The question arises: If these states believe they have the authority to exempt gun manufacturing and sales from federal law, do they also claim the authority to defy federal court rulings – even by the Supreme Court – to the contrary? Is secession next?

For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.

Dobbs blames immigration activists.

Police remind folks that the shot apparently “did not come close to” Dobbs wife, that it was hunting season at the time, and that they wouldn’t “classify it [the gunfire incident] as very unusual” since hunter complaints go up during that time of year.

We report, you decide.

First, Dobbs’ take via FOX News:

A gunshot was fired at the New Jersey home of CNN’s Lou Dobbs after a series of threatening phone calls earlier this month, the host told listeners on his nationally syndicated radio show.

Dobbs, a fervent proponent of U.S. border enforcement, told listeners of “The Lou Dobbs Show” on Monday that the incident is part of an ongoing assault against anyone who opposes amnesty or leniency toward illegal immigrants.

“They’ve created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda,” Dobbs said in reference to pro-immigration groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Council of La Raza and America’s Voice. “Three weeks ago this morning, a shot was fired at my house where I live. My wife was standing out and that followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”….

[more]

Now, the New Jersey State Police, via Huffington Post:

…Interviews with the New Jersey State Police yielded a rather different assessment of the events described by Dobbs. In a phone interview conducted yesterday, Sgt. Stephen Jones, a NJ State Police spokesperson, chuckled out loud after he heard about Dobbs’ account of the gunfire incident. Jones commented that he “wouldn’t classify it [the gunfire incident] as very unusual.” He also confirmed that there are hunters in the area, and stated that, “at this time of year hunter [shooting] complaints go up.”…

…Another New Jersey State Police spokesperson, Sgt. Julian Castellanos, noted that “it’s a wide open area and there are hunters in the area.” Castellanos explained that the bullet had hit the house in vicinity of the attic; it “hit the vinyl siding and fell to the ground” without penetrating the vinyl, he said.

While Lou Dobbs’ wife, Debi Lee Segura, was standing outside the house at the time of the gunfire, the bullet did not come close to her; it “struck at the apex of the house, near the roof,” and thus considerably higher than a standing person, Jones observed….

[more]

By the way, The Dobbs family lives in New Jersey, a state with some of the strongest gun laws in America, with the nation’s sixth lowest gun death rate.

Across the border in Pennsylvania, the gun death rate is twice as high.

By Doug Pennington
Assistant Director, Communications

Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt posted a request on his New York Times blog, asking readers to offer ideas for reducing “teen shootings” in President Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago.

Some 300 public school students have been shot since September 2008.  Over 40 Chicago kids have been killed since January 1.

Levitt writes:

…But how do we reduce the violence? The political reality is that any strategy has to reduce violence quickly. While early intervention into the lives of young children might lower future violence, more is needed in this setting. Shootings need to be reduced now….

…Thus, I turn to you, the blog readers. Assuming that you had access to some resources, what approach would you take to try to address this problem? Dare to be creative. Most of the obvious things have already been tried and largely failed. We desperately need fresh ideas.

[more]

Levitt’s call comes in the wake of the vicious murder of Chicago Public School student Derrion Albert who, contrary to the shooting trend, was killed with wood planks.  His murder was filmed on a camera phone, and the video made national news.

After that high-profile incident, President Obama sent his Attorney General and Education Secretary to Chicago to talk about a problem they vaguely called “youth violence.”

Both cabinet officials gave speeches.  Whether out of political fear or something else, neither could bring himself to utter the word “gun.”

Bearing this in mind, a couple of points are worth making in offering an answer to Levitt’s call.

First, the wheel may not need to be totally re-invented. The University of Chicago Crime Lab has already begun working to produce “fresh ideas” and practical solutions to the problem of Chicago school kids shooting each other.  People in a position to make policy may want to begin there, and then work their way outward.

Second, the “political reality” is that there are no quick-fix solutions that will reduce shootings right “now.”  They don’t exist.  The only solution to Chicago kids shooting each other is the comprehensive kind, requiring a long-term, focused approach, an investment of resources into that approach, and the courage of politicians to protect their community – and their country – from gun lobbyists who are worried more about their special interests than they are keeping guns out of the hands of illegal traffickers, felons and children.

Third, separating kids from guns has to be part of this approach.  There is no alternative.  With 300 Chicago school children shot since last September, it is an essential part.  There isn’t an epidemic of kids killing each other with wooden boards in Chicago.  You want to know why?  Because guns are much better at killing people and Chicago’s kids have easy access to them.

(By way of comparison, according to national FBI statistics, 37 school-age kids between the ages of 5 and 19 were killed with blunt objects in 2008.  With a firearm? 1,531.  England and Wales, on the other hand, have about 60 gun murders total in a given year.)

Finally, Chicago can’t do it alone.  The city needs national help. Gun advocates take pleasure in pointing to the so-called “failure” of Chicago’s gun laws.  Those same advocates cower from the uncomfortable fact that Chicago is within a 5-hour drive from some of the weakest gun law states in America: Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin.

None of these states scored more than 25 points out of 100 on our most recent State scorecard.  Even Illinois fails to break 30 points.  How is a city that wants strict gun regulations supposed to hold back a tide of illegal firearms all by itself, as they wash over its border from these weak jurisdictions?  It can’t.

Chicago needs meaningful help from Congress and the White House who, in turn, need to tackle the illegal gun market – and the gun lobby that enables it – head-on.

Without a strong national gun violence prevention safety net, city ordinances alone, while still useful to local law enforcement, can’t be expected to carry the whole burden of keeping guns out of the hands of children and teens.

Steven Levitt writes that in Chicago, “most of the obvious things have already been tried and largely failed” and that “shootings need to be reduced now” with “fresh ideas.”

Have they really been “tried”?  Or have national politicians just given them lip service, leading many observers to just throw up their hands?

Levitt’s urgency for the quick fix is well taken.  But as in the more prosaic need to lose weight, everybody wants that magic weight loss pill rather than be told to exercise more and eat less.

Magic wands are for Harry Potter.

In the real world, only hard work, adequate resources, a laser-beam focus on proximate and remote causes, a sustained commitment over the long haul, and the courage to fight special interests who stand in the way of saving children’s lives will lead to permanent solutions to complex social problems.

The epidemic of Chicago school kids shooting and killing each other by the dozen is one such problem.

__

Doug Pennington
Assistant Director, Communications

Last week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that requires handgun ammunition to be treated by retailers in much the same way that cigarettes, some cold medicines and even spray paint are treated.

As already shown in some California cities, this common sense measure will go a long way toward keeping ammunition away from gang members and felons in California, and provide law enforcement crucial leads to track down and apprehend armed criminals.

Getting this bill passed was the top priority of our California Brady Campaign Chapters this year, and was the result of tireless advocacy by our activists and allies alongside the bill’s sponsor, Assembly Member Kevin DeLeon of Los Angeles.

(Click here for highlights of the signing ceremony.)

What does this new California law do?  It requires handgun ammunition vendors to record identifying information of ammunition buyers, including their names from a state-issued ID, a thumbprint and a signature.  In addition, vendors will also have to record information about the type and amount of ammunition purchased or transferred. These records are to be maintained by the vendor for at least five years and must be made available to law enforcement.

Similar measures have been tested in California cities, and they work.

For example, Sacramento already has a similar law in effect.  From January 16, 2008 to August 31, 2009, Sacramento police used their ordinance to find 229 prohibited people – including gang members – who had illegally purchased ammunition.  Of those, 173 had previous felony convictions.   After police matched ammunition purchase records to the California prohibited persons file, the Sacramento District Attorney was able to charge 181 illegal ammunition purchasers with felonies.

As a result of these investigations, 160 illegal firearms were seized from these prohibited purchasers, as well as cash, drugs, and even explosive devices.  Beyond the immediate benefits of catching illegal ammunition buyers, this ordinance actually helped Sacramento law enforcement discover and punish other unlawful behavior.

The Governor cited these local ordinances, and the success they demonstrated, in explaining why he signed the current bill after having vetoed a similar measure a few years back.  If other states would show some confidence in letting local communities try different measures like this – instead of pre-empting local efforts to prevent gun violence – maybe we would learn of other successful strategies to make us all safer.

The new law signed by Governor Schwarzenegger had the strong support of law enforcement officials from across California, and the Brady Campaign was proud to join them.

By adopting a common sense policy to give law enforcement powerful tools to disarm felons and gang members in possession of illegal guns and bullets, the state of California has once again set an example for the rest of the country to follow.

Other states should note what California has done here, and consider similar measures.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Here are a few highlights from today’s signing ceremony of AB962, the bill making it harder for criminals and other dangerous people to get ammunition in California.

It features Governor Schwarzenegger, Assemblymember Kevin DeLeon (the bill’s sponsor) and Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton: