TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk wrote:

chartreuse wrote:Of course, that wouldn't prevent the court from saying "It's not our job to make law, Wickard v Filburn stands and if you want to change it, that's what Congress is for."

They made law when they decided Wickard. What they really hate to do is admit that previous courts made bad decisions.

That's no lie.

These nullification laws seems to be a direct assertion of the 10th amendment, specifically of state sovereignty, designed to engage the federal government through the courts. I think the rammifications of giving the 10th more teeth will have a monumental impact on the federal-state government dynamic. I'm guessing that nullification of federal firearms laws on intra-state business was probably the easiest thing to test, and would establish a precedent for future cases down the line, should the states prevail.

I was wondering earlier about how in sync state and federal politicians are on states' rights issues. It's easy to imagine state and local representatives thumbing their noses at the federal government, so to speak, and working to expand state control of state affairs, but when federal representatives get sucked into D.C. hubris, how eager would they be to weaken their hold on their power over the states? I ask because if the states fail here, then it would fall on federal representatives to go about it through congress to legislate the individual sovereignty of the states back into the constitution.

sjfcontrol wrote:I've seen this stuff mentioned before. I just wonder how they are going to prevent the movement of these "special" arms and ammunition across state lines. Once purchased, what keeps them in-state? Are we going to have to have "export inspection stations" along all the state borders? Somehow it doesn't seem workable.

Also, the feds claim that any manufacture within the state affects inter-state commerce as it reduces the demand on out-of-state products. Thus EVERYTHING is regulate-able (?) by them.

I've been wondering about this myself. If, in context, growing your own grain is illegal because it affects interstate commerce, how could this possibly withstand the SCOTUS without them overturning precedent? I expect the commerce clause is going to shut these laws down.