You said they could ban certain types of guns under the commerce clause, but not a particular application of guns, such as deer hunting.
I've looked for your explanation, but didn't find one and still don't see why there is this difference. Setting aside for the moment the argument about illegal drugs, for legal drugs, they are ALSO banning certain applications, such as assisted suicide. Drugs are legal, but only for federally approved applications.
The gun is legal, and must be legal for hunting if the state says hunting is OK.
The drug is legal, but cannot be legal for assisted suicide, even though the state says that's OK, because the Congress says it is not an approved drug use.
So if Congress embarked on a regulatory scheme (to which is due all the deference in the world, of course) to regulate deer hunting by abolishing it nationwide, and they said yeah, guns are legal, but not if used for the application of shooting deer, why would that not supercede state hunting laws?
It seems like, based on your logic, it must. Explain the difference (again?)
I know what you're trying to say, but it's simply not a good analogy to comment on. There's too many things wrong with it.
Suffice to say that IF Congress passed a constitutional law, then, yes, that law would supercede any state law to the contrary (under the Supremacy Clause). But, the USSC may allow the state law to continue, leaving it up to the federal government to enforce the "no hunting deer with a gun" federal law.
This is what's happening today with the medical marijuana laws. You can't be arrested by the state in the states where it's legal, but the feds can arrest you.
This may be the end result in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal by the state, but the feds may be able to arrest the doctor.
Suffice to say that Congress can pass a constitutional law banning automatic weapons using the commerce clause, -- and yes, that law would supercede any state law to the contrary (under the Supremacy Clause).
But, the USSC may allow the state law allowing possession of grandfathered machine guns to continue, leaving it up to the federal government to enforce the "no machine gun" federal law.
Trust me, this all makes sense if you let it.
So if Congress embarked on a regulatory scheme (to which is due all the deference in the world, of course) to regulate deer hunting by abolishing it nationwide, and they said yeah, guns are legal, but not if used for the application of shooting deer, why would that not supercede state hunting laws?
You just don't get it. It must be the butt thing..
The feds can pass laws superceding state laws as long as they have the right intent.. Machine guns are evil, whereas an AR-15, even though a bit light for deer, is OK for hunting because Congress said so in its finding.