[Biggirl]

They will. The USSC has a history of doing so.

[Daveinyork]

They will, until someone convinces Roberts that firearms confiscation is actually a tax.

[Salvey]

no interstate commerce takes place.

As I recall, under the Federal Food and Drug Act, the courts have held that a drug is considered being in the flow of interstate commerce, and thereby subject to federal law, if any single ingredient of that drug was manufactured out of state. Certainly some of the raw materials for these firearms came from out of state.

[Repeal The 17th]

“...The Firearms Freedom Act passed by Montana in 2009
declares that federal firearms laws do not apply
to firearms that are kept in the state
where they were manufactured.
In other words, no interstate commerce takes place...”
-
Hasn’t it already been ruled that growing wheat on your own property
for your own consumption can be regulated as “interstate commerce”?

[PubliusMM]

I would not be surprised to see USSC find that the Firearms Freedom Act is NOT Constitutional. Using the notion of interstate versus intrastate commerce will likely not hold water with the Justices. The commerce cause has been extended well beyond its intended meaning, and will be called on again, in this case, to foist FedGov supremacy on the States.
Apart from that, the whole of FedGov has spit on States’ Rights for the last hundred years, and will continue until forced to stop.

I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think this will turn out well for us.

[DoodleDawg]

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms told Marbut such a gun would be illegal under Montana law, prompting a lawsuit by the group against the U.S. attorney general.

So is it illegal under Montana law? If so then federal law isn't the problem here, state law is. So get the state law changed.

[reed13k]

Didn’t they rule in the 30’s that a farmer who didn’t sell his own crops impacted interstate commmerce by withholding them and therefore was subject to the federal rules or some such...

[Cboldt]

The SCOTUS already ruled on the argument, holding that Federal law trumps state law on commerce clause principles. The case was in the 9th Circuit, where Reynolds was charged with a federal violation of the NFA. The gun in question was built in his home, and had never left the state of California. The 9th Circuit reversed the conviction. The feds appealed to SCOTUS, which ordered the 9th Circuit to reinstate the conviction, "see Raich."

[theBuckwheat]

Yet another point to rectify in the dysfunctional relationship between the people, the states and the federal government when we hold a Convention to Consider Amendments to the Constitution.

[i_robot73]

Not as if they uphold the Constitution...”Shall not be infringed” is pretty to understand, even for those with a ‘law degree’.

[pierrem15]

Under the current regime, 'states rights' mean nothing unless a state is actually willing to use force by arresting federal officials.

The Montana law-- like most other such measures-- was intended as symbolic Bubba bait.