The problem with that whole interstate commerce thing is that the government has argued in the past (successfully) that not participating in interstate commerce effects interstate commerce so they can still regulate it. I think it had to do with farming and selling produce or a crop of some sort.srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:55 pmI disagree, at least in part. If he just sold rifles he made, then I agree that the laws are unconstitutional. But if he was selling commercially made firearms the laws are probably constitutional. The constitution is clear that the federal government can regulate interstate commerce. If the maker of the rifles was in another state, it is very possible to claim he was engaged in interstate commerce. There is an argument that the law is unconstitutional in that it never really uses the words interstate commerce. It really says the commerce between the states, which can be interpreted to mean only the actual transaction that crosses state lines versus the whole trail from manufacturer to final purchaser.anygunanywhere wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 5:28 pm Classic case of 2nd Amendment infringement. The ATF is an unconstitutional agency and the laws he broke are unconstitutional.
There is a fine line in where the regulation of interstate commerce crosses over the line of Second Amendment rights. Simple regulation of the sales is not an infringement on my right to own, though over restriction of commerce is. We need to be careful of what we claim outright is a violation of the constitution when it is a case of competing constitutional authorities.
Search found 1 match
Return to “ATF: Happy Pride Month.”
- Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:18 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: ATF: Happy Pride Month.
- Replies: 17
- Views: 5439