ATF: Happy Pride Month.

[threoh8]

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.

Wickard v Filburn, 1942. Over wheat. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111

[srothstein]

I 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.

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.

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.

I agree that there are problems with the application of that clause. In my personal opinion, the Wickard case was the worst mistake the SCOTUS has ever made. This case destroyed any concept of a limited government and the dissent pointed this out. Of course, my opinion counts for little in those things. I have a friend who swears that the Constitution meant when one state was making purchases from another state and that the federal government had no authority to regulate commerce as I am making a purchase, even if I live in Texas and am ordering it from Pennsylvania because it is not between two states. I think that is a bit of a stretch though and I think it means any transaction where the transaction crosses state lines. Even that leaves a lot of wiggle room for the feds to regulate manufacturing because they can still say that anything that is sold in interstate commerce must meet certain standards. The question on regulating sales of firearms then becomes what is a transaction. If I buy the firearm from a distributor in another state to sell in Texas, is my sale to another Texan interstate? What about if I sell it to a person from New Jersey who is here on vacation?

But the most important part of this is that there is a constitutional power to regulate commerce between the states (SCOTUS missing the actual wording and going with the popular shorthand is part of what led to the bad decision) that means that just the regulation of the selling of firearms MIGHT be legal and constitutional. Your point is the one I was making where I said it would be an unconstitutional law if he made the firearms and only sold what he made, but if he was selling others that he had bought wholesale, then he was probably participating in interstate commerce and the laws were constitutional. And we have to be very careful about making flat out statements of what is or isn't constitutional.

[couzin]

So he was making rifles like they did in the old days with hand rotated machining?

The Amish use electricity, just not the kind that comes in over wires. On site solar and generators are acceptable.