It's almost identical to Raich v Ashcroft, the medical marijuana case in California.
So you imagine, in your crackerjack lawyer mode. Personally, I think your neener-neener style, as above, suits you better.
The USSC will use, as precedent, the landmark case, Wickard v Filburn to strike down both cases. "Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who argued that his wheat crop should not fall under federal production quotas because much of it was consumed on his own farm. The Supreme Court held that even if that wheat did not enter interstate commerce, wheat grown for use on a farm altered supply and demand in the national market."
Actually, the way Scalia & Thomas have been opining, your beloved commerce clause may be in trouble.
If guns are manufactured in Montana and purchased in Montana, that means that Montanans are not buying them from other states. Correct? Does that then negatively affect interstate commerce?
Makes sense to Mrs Brady, aye robert?
Now, normally, who cares? BUT, Congress has chosen to regulate the interstate commerce of firearms.
Under the 2nd, they have no such choice. -- But you say "who cares"?
Therefore, anything that substantially affects their regulatory efforts (and this would) is their business and they have the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to regulate that intrastate traffic also.
Ah yes, Congress's business is all neatly wrapped up "under the Necessary and Proper Clause", -- they can do most anything to 'regulate' away our freedoms. Rattle your chains robert, and drink some more Kool-Aid.
Ask yourself. What if every state did this? Wouldn't this make a mockery of Congress' regulatory efforts? Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Commerce Clause? That states could undermine and subvert Congressional efforts?
States have the power, and the duty, to check & balance federal excesses. Socialists like you can't understand that point, but it is a rather basic principle of the Republic.
Now, since the issue is guns, you're all in favor of the states spitting on the feds. So, what, do we start making exceptions to the Commerce Clause to please you? Maybe it's better if we, instead, take this up with the people we elected?
That's exactly what Montanans are trying to do, and you oppose them.
The ones who wrote these laws and tell them to repeal the laws or they will be voted out? Wouldn't this be better than corrupting the Commerce Clause because of this one issue? Or is it just easier to sit at your keyboard and type, "The courts are twisting the Commerce Clause .... blah, blah, blah ... what are we going to do ...?"
Off you go in your rant mode again. Poor little robert.
Time to get off our collective butts and vote out the people writing these confiscatory gun laws. That's where we have our power. Not with unelected judges.
We? -- You write reams of prose defending gun prohibitions and then in closing try to ally yourself with defenders of the 2nd? How laughable.
After reading your post #150, I had to agree that my reply to you was too brief and not up to my usual standard. So I took the time to repost, given your admonition, and actually put some thought and explanations into it.
Well, little did I know that all you wanted to do was pick it apart and make fun of it. Hey, fine. It's a free country. You're welcome to do that.
But actions do have consequences. Be advised that you picked apart my last post to you.