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.
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.
Such a statement makes sense if, and only if we presuppose that the Constitution is a "living document", and "original intent" has no relation to the legitimate powers of Congress.