The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Right, interstate commerce, which is the only place where the fed would have jurisdiction.WildBill wrote:I seem to remember something about that. I believe that if the suppressor is made in Montana and stays in Montana [doesn't cross state lines], the Feds don't have jurisdiction.
Who wants to open up shop with me in Texas?WildBill wrote:I seem to remember something about that. I believe that if the suppressor is made in Montana and stays in Montana [doesn't cross state lines], the Feds don't have jurisdiction.
Are there any mines in TX? Could we mine ore in TX (the old-fashioned way), feed the workers with food raised in TX food, give them water from a spring in TX, construct a forge using only materials found in TX and tools made in TX, etc... ?jason237m wrote:I can see a group saying the steel, tools, etc. crossed state lines to build the supressor and is therefore open to federal regulation. It's extemely strained logic but we've seen worse from big government, central planning types.
If the feds haven't made this argument in Montana yet then they probably wouldn't make it here either.jason237m wrote:I can see a group saying the steel, tools, etc. crossed state lines to build the supressor and is therefore open to federal regulation. It's extemely strained logic but we've seen worse from big government, central planning types.
In Gonzales v. Raich:jason237m wrote:I can see a group saying the steel, tools, etc. crossed state lines to build the supressor and is therefore open to federal regulation. It's extemely strained logic but we've seen worse from big government, central planning types.
The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.
It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.
Obviously the marijuana decision was political and not based on the law. It isn't hard to fathom what the justices were smoking when they made the decision about homegrown wheat. Hopefully the United States v. Lopez decision will be based on the actual US Constitution.i8godzilla wrote:In Gonzales v. Raich:jason237m wrote:I can see a group saying the steel, tools, etc. crossed state lines to build the supressor and is therefore open to federal regulation. It's extemely strained logic but we've seen worse from big government, central planning types.
The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.
By this standard it means that sales in Montana can have an effect on the market in the entire country.
Wickard v. Filburn perverted the Commerce Clause. The court held that growing wheat for personal consumption affected the cost of wheat across the entire country. Thus Congress could regulate almost anything--and they do!
Maybe those in Montana are counting on United States v. Lopez. The high court's position:
It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.
I can see those same people saying the Earth is flat and the First Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons.jason237m wrote:I can see a group saying the steel, tools, etc. crossed state lines to build the supressor and is therefore open to federal regulation. It's extemely strained logic but we've seen worse from big government, central planning types.
