There is lots of precedent for this - not that I agree with the precedent, but bear in mind that law is based on brute force, not on logic or respect for tradition or agreement.
The Ninth Circuit, of all circuits, reversed a federal conviction, reasoning that the firearms in question never left California. The Supreme Court ordered the Ninth Circuit to reinstate the conviction, using the Raich (marijuana) case for support of federal jurisdiction over intrastate commerce.
I ponder, from time to time, what it will take to constitute sufficient political pressure to get Congress and the federal Courts to back off.
I ponder, from time to time, what it will take to constitute sufficient political pressure to get Congress and the federal Courts to back off.
Similar united action from the majority of states backed up by their National Guards and local law enforcement.
These laws do no more than point out federal overreach and state that the state will not comply. Some of them actually go so far as to criminalize federal LEO's for enforcing federal laws on guns to which they do not properly apply. Next step would be for the state saying its state LEO's will protect with force of arms any citizen of the state the feds want to prosecute for a "violation" of a federal law lacking jurisdiction. And mean it. There are I think 8 states that have passed some version of this, and so far only Wyoming's contains the prohibition of federal agents (Vermont's or New Hampshire's did too, but failed to be passed), but there have been no confrontations as yet, so it remains to be seen how serious the states were or if it was just symbolism.