One poster made an interesting point that the SCOTUS has already ruled federal marijuana laws trump state laws.
We will see if the current SCOTUS goes the same way or not as this will probably get to that level within the next few years.
Very disappointing to say the least.
I hope he doesn't go the same way here.
IIRC, the argument over marijuana was that local producers were putting their product on the national market effecting interstate commerce; the federal government recognized no legitimate purpose for marijuana, so making it cheaper to buy marijuana inherently served an aim in opposition to the federal regulation of the “commerce.”
In the gun case, Montana seems to have anticipated this issue. By certifying that they are produced and sold locally, takes them out of the sphere of federal interest. The only way this could be dragged back into a commerce-clause situation would seem to me to be if the federal government affirmed that, as in the case of marijuana, they had a federal interest in reducing demand by artifically, purposely inflating prices, an argument which would put them into direct opposition with the 2nd amendment.
IIRC, the argument over marijuana was that local producers were putting their product on the national market effecting interstate commerce; the federal government recognized no legitimate purpose for marijuana, so making it cheaper to buy marijuana inherently served an aim in opposition to the federal regulation of the “commerce.”
In the gun case, Montana seems to have anticipated this issue. By certifying that they are produced and sold locally, takes them out of the sphere of federal interest. The only way this could be dragged back into a commerce-clause situation would seem to me to be if the federal government affirmed that, as in the case of marijuana, they had a federal interest in reducing demand by artifically, purposely inflating prices, an argument which would put them into direct opposition with the 2nd amendment.
CAVEAT: When the issue is banning the gun outright, such as automatic rifles in the Brady bill, this then can go into the area of interstate commerce under the marijuana case.
Actually, in real life, the feds have given up on this, they are leaving the states with Medical MJ laws alone. In CA alone, if you have a medical MJ prescription you can carry about as much as you want around with you. I know one guy that has bags full of it he gets on his prescription. I don't use it but the feds have decided it can't enforce in a state that has such laws.
The SCOTUS was wrong to rule like that, BTW. Just as they would be wrong to rule that States don't have the right to ignore fed laws if they keep their firearms that are made, sold solely, in their states free from federal interference. The interstate commerce BS is just that, BS.
They already did. The pot case is Raich, and it was applied to a firearms conviction, by order of SCOTUS.
There is a case on the books of a fellow with a homemade machine gun, probably never left his house, and he was convicted (upheld too) on federal charges, via application of Raich, per order of SCOTUS. That is, SCOTUS told the Circuit Court to apply Raich to a conviction for the possession of a homemade weapon that never crossed a state line. United States v. Stewart.
Sure, and they just closed all he pot shops in California. </sarcasm>
“One poster made an interesting point that the SCOTUS has already ruled federal marijuana laws trump state laws.”
Yes, that is true. There is a major difference between marijuana and a firearm.
The 2nd Amendment affirms our right to possess a firearm.
There is no right to grow or use marijuana, and definitely no right to get stoned! Food and drugs are regulated by the U.S. Govenment.