The way things are structured, both the federal government and the state government have jurisdiction over the individual. They call it “dual sovereignty.” The federal government does not have jurisdiction over the state.
The theory of state interposition is that somehow the state can get between the federal government and the individual. In this case, the state has said that it is exempting the individual from the jurisdiction of the federal government when the firearms are entirely manufactured and sold within the state. The state is presuming that the Constitutional authority of the federal government to regulate individuals involved in firearms manufacture and sales stems entirely from the Interstate Commerce Clause. The state is attempting to exempt firearms that are made and sold intrastate from federal jurisdiction by defining them as outside the stream of interstate commerce.
The feds are ignoring the state and telling the individuals that they will regulate them and, by implication, that the firearms and transactions are within the stream of the interstate commerce act or that they have the Constitutional authority to regulate based on some other enumerated power. The state law has the effect of being advisory only and the feds are telling the individuals it is bad advise.
I wonder if the state will defend the individual in court when he is arrested by federal agents for violation of the federal regulation. (And whatever you think, the Sheriff cannot prevent the feds from exercising their legitimate regulatory authority over an individual.) From my readings of prior SCOTUS interpretations of the Interstate Commerce authority, I think the state (if it goes to court) and individual will lose.
(This does not mean that I don’t think that the Court has gone off the moon in interpreting the powers of the Interstate Commerce Act.)
So, to me, the solution is to get folks in the White House and Senate who will appoint and confirm conservative 2nd Amendment judges. Or set up test cases to challenge Constitutionality in court. Or, I believe I read that a member of Congress can ask SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of a regulation. If that is so, we need more Congresspersons willing to put those questions to the court. We also need Congress to pass the act that requires that laws be rectified and referenced with appropraite Constitutional authority.
I agree. The criminal case will be tried in a Federal Court. There have been cases of exactly this nature, and the Federal Courts have upheld and endorsed the conviction, provided the words "or affects interstate commerce" appear in the federal law, and are recited in the criminal complaint.
-- So, to me, the solution is to get folks in the White House and Senate who will appoint and confirm conservative 2nd Amendment judges. Or set up test cases to challenge Constitutionality in court. Or, I believe I read that a member of Congress can ask SCOTUS to rule on the Constitutionality of a regulation. --
I believe one of the state-rights states has filed an action for declaratory judgment. That will uphold the federal limitations on RKBA as superior over the state. There is no such thing as a "conservative 2nd amendment federal court." I've read quite a few of the relevant cases, and my conclusion (and it is easy as pie to reach) is that the Courts jurisprudence on 2nd amendment matters is corrupt. It is not based on logic or reason, it is based on force and only on force. Recent case, Hamblen in the 6th Circuit argued that the Supreme Court misconstrued Miller, when SCOTUS decided the Heller case. Hamblen argued how the Heller decision misstated the Miller case, inasmuch as Heller is used to uphold the 1934 NFA. IOW, Hamblen said, "The Heller Court used Miller to uphold the 1934 NFA, but Miller doesn't uphold the 1934 NFA." The 6th Circuit's "reasoned" rebuttal? "The Heller Court upheld the 1934 NFA." Silent treatment, non-response to his argument that Heller got Miller wrong.
There is ZERO chance that SCOTUS will take up Hamblen's case. What are they going to do, admit they are corrupt? Hah.
I predict the sham will end with an effectively disarmed populace in about two or three generations. I don't see any move by the feds to relax any of the unconstitutional laws now on the books.