In a recent episode of Washington Gun Law TV, attorney William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, unpacked a surprisingly bold legal argument emerging from the case Williams v. United States. The case challenges the federal statute 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which bars felons from possessing firearms. While dozens of similar cases have come before the Supreme Court, Kirk explains that this one is different – it’s not just another Second Amendment challenge. Instead, it leans into constitutional federalism, blending the 10th Amendment with a challenge to the Commerce Clause itself.
The Usual Arguments, But Then Something Different
According to Kirk, most briefs challenging federal gun laws follow the same path. He describes them as “reading one, reading them all.” But this particular petition, filed by Fitzgerald Hall, Williams’ public defender, catches attention for its innovative approach. Rather than simply invoking the Second Amendment, Hall digs into constitutional limits on federal authority, suggesting Congress may have overstepped by using the Commerce Clause to regulate something as local and personal as mere firearm possession.
What Is the 10th Amendment, and Why Does It Matter?
Kirk emphasizes the 10th Amendment’s vital role in preserving state authority. It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To many gun rights advocates, this raises a central question: Where exactly does the Constitution give the federal government the power to regulate firearms at all? If it doesn’t, then maybe those powers rightfully belong to the states.
The Commerce Clause: Congress’s Favorite Tool
Of course, the federal government does have a tool it often uses – the Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. This clause gives Congress authority to regulate commerce between states, foreign nations, and Native tribes. Over the years, Kirk notes, this provision has turned into a massive legal loophole, allowing Congress to regulate industries far beyond what the founders likely intended, including firearms. This is how laws like § 922(g)(1) came to be, tying possession to some loose thread of interstate commerce.
The Williams Argument: Possession Isn’t Commerce
Here’s where the Williams case takes a sharp turn. The petition argues that simple possession of a firearm, particularly when it occurs entirely within one state, has no meaningful connection to interstate commerce. As Kirk explains, the petitioners argue that using the Commerce Clause in this way is a bridge too far. It’s one thing to regulate guns crossing state lines, but it’s another to criminalize someone for simply owning a gun that happens to have once crossed a border years ago.
The 1977 Precedent: United States v. Scarborough
Kirk takes us back to 1977 and a case called United States v. Scarborough, where the court ruled that if a firearm had ever moved through interstate commerce, even decades prior, the federal government could claim authority to regulate its possession. That ruling set a dangerous precedent, Kirk warns, allowing sweeping interpretations of the Commerce Clause to stand unchallenged for years.
A Later Case Strikes a Different Tone
But that wasn’t the end of the story. Kirk points to a more recent case involving Gun-Free School Zones, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(q). In that case, the Court rejected Congress’s attempt to regulate guns near schools, arguing that mere proximity wasn’t enough – there had to be a substantial effect on interstate commerce. That ruling created a new standard and opened the door for challenges like the one in Williams.
Applying the Same Logic to 922(g)(1)
So why does this matter? Because Williams v. United States argues that the same test should apply to § 922(g)(1). If the Court ruled that gun-free zones near schools couldn’t be regulated without a substantial effect on commerce, then why should it be okay for Congress to regulate mere possession by a felon using that same logic? It’s a compelling question, and Kirk believes it’s rooted in “solid constitutional principles” that can’t be ignored.
This Argument Won’t Kill All Gun Laws – But It Could Pick Off Dozens
Kirk is careful not to overstate the case. He clarifies that this argument isn’t a silver bullet that could wipe out every federal gun law overnight. Many federal gun regulations – such as those covering the manufacture, transport, and sale of firearms across state lines – would still stand under a valid reading of the Commerce Clause. But possession laws like 922(g)(1)? That’s a different story. If the courts buy into this argument, dozens of existing federal statutes could suddenly be up for reconsideration.
A Public Defender’s Bold Move
Kirk praises Fitzgerald Hall, the public defender who drafted the brief. It’s not every day that a court-appointed attorney builds a challenge that could upend decades of federal firearms policy. Kirk calls Hall’s legal work “clever,” “solid,” and “fascinating,” showing how even routine criminal cases can lead to major constitutional breakthroughs.
A Constitutional Challenge Rooted in Principle
What makes this so fascinating is the principled nature of the argument. This isn’t about technicalities or obscure loopholes. It’s about federalism, state sovereignty, and a real test of the limits of congressional power. Kirk is clearly energized by it, and it’s easy to see why. The outcome of this case could reset the entire conversation about who really has the authority to regulate gun ownership in the United States.
A Legal Earthquake Waiting to Happen
From a commentary standpoint, it’s incredible to see how a single case, brought not by a high-powered legal team but by a public defender, could challenge the very structure of federal authority. It raises questions we’ve been skirting for decades: Are we giving too much power to Congress under the guise of “commerce”? Is the federal government using this clause to do an end-run around rights reserved to the people or the states? These aren’t just abstract legal questions – they cut to the heart of how law, power, and freedom interact in everyday life.
Why This Case Deserves Attention
Too often, the media focuses on the loudest voices, the biggest protests, or the flashiest headlines. But it’s in courtrooms like this, quiet, detailed, and deeply constitutional, where real change begins. If Williams v. United States gains traction, we might witness a return to limited federal power in the gun debate. And for those worried about preserving the Second Amendment, this 10th Amendment-based challenge might just be the unexpected lifeline they’ve been waiting for.
For more info, check out the Washington Gun Law video here.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.