[MarkL]

But, see Montana, Texas, Tennessee, Idaho, and Utah: “Feds can shove gun laws in our state, for guns made and used in this state (which therefore never moved in interstate commerce).”

This is already settled case law... It's how the government managed to expand federal control over EVERYTHING via the interstate commerce clause.

The government will claim that since those guns manufactured and sold exclusively within the state influences the interstate sales of other gun manufacturers, because the people in that state ARE NOT buying the guns of out of state manufacturers!

The original case came from a farmer who claimed exemption from federal control because he was only feeding himself and his family, and since he wasn't buying or selling anything, his farm didn't fall under federal control. The court ruled that since he wasn't buying farm goods from out of state vendors, his lack of purchasing WAS affecting interstate commerce.

So the court ruled effectively that both doing stuff and not doing stuff affects interstate commerce, so the federal government has jurisdiction everywhere, over everything, through the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

Mark

[coloradan]

It might be “settled case law,” but the Montana law reminds the federal government that a contract was formed between the State of Montana and the United States that included the recognition of the right “as it existed in 1889.” So the feds can point to the more recent case you describe and void the Montana law, and then Montana can point to their contract - and secede. There will be a showdown. Obama can't stand up to terrorists, can he stand up to Montanans? (Probably he can and will, they're not trying to destroy America as the terrorists are, and Obama's goal is that destruction.)