This comment by GRex over at Hube's place got me started thinking: They're most likely trying to ride the Craig's List killings and that woman who drove a teenager to commit suicide. Add that to the grandstanding over NCAA football playoffs, and I wonder if there's anything at all that Congress can't mess with under the Interstate Commerce Clause? Here's what the comment made me think: the Interstate Commerce Clause is the (supposedly) (only) Constitutional basis for virtually all major legislation for the past several decades, but what I never see is any calls for an originalist interpretation of the ICC. Yet at the same time we are usually inundated with arguments that the 2nd Amendment was only intended to arm militias, or arguments that the Framers never anticipated automatic weapons to justify gun control. I'm trying to distill this contradiction down to a workable premise, and I think I've got it: Parts of the Constitution that empower the Sta...

This needs some careful consideration rather than a knee-jerk reaction of either the right or left. From AP /t Alphecca ] [h: HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government. In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed. That notion is all but certain to be tested in court. The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control. Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana...