Worse - Wickard v Filburn.
Any gun purchased in Kansas, made in Kansas, has an effect on interstate commerce because it would have been bought from an out of state manufacturer if it wasn’t bought in Ks.
“Any gun purchased in Kansas, made in Kansas, has an effect on interstate commerce because it would have been bought from an out of state manufacturer if it wasn’t bought in Ks.”
Not true. If Kansas permits the production of weapons that are otherwise banned by Federal law then they will be uniquely available in Kansas and not anywhere else. This cleverly obviates Wickard v. Filburn.
“Worse - Wickard v Filburn.
Any gun purchased in Kansas, made in Kansas, has an effect on interstate commerce because it would have been bought from an out of state manufacturer if it wasn’t bought in Ks”
Guess what, it’s not about supreme court precedent anymore, it’s about raw political power. You are right; the SCOTUS Wickard v Fiburn decision would seem to prohibit this law, but most constitutionalists would agree that Wickard v Fiburn was a flawed ruling not supported by the original intent of the commerce clause.
It’s about time that the states stand up for the constitution even if it means opposing SCOTUS decisions and the unconstitutional actions of the executive branch.
“Any gun purchased in Kansas, made in Kansas, has an effect on interstate commerce because it would have been bought from an out of state manufacturer if it wasn’t bought in Ks.”
No, because it would have been unavailable outside Kansas. Especially if it has a unique model number...