I think that reading is not accurate, as it would be a direct violation of the concept of states rights.
A state can not make something a crime which is solely dependent upon the "offender" simply possessing and object or engaging in an activity while being located in a specific geographic area.
They do it all the time. Obtain a one-ounce bag of pot in Colorado, get stopped and it is a summary offense. Now, drive with that bag of pot to Arizona, and you can get thrown in jail.
There was much discussion of this concept in early America. To not respect this, would mean that all "travelers" would have to know the laws of anywhere they pass through, and could be incarcerated for simply doing something that was fine and dandy where they came from.
Once again, that happens all the time.
Sure they do - I do not deny that. But they do it under the "color of law". Its the whim of man, nothing more. It does not respect individual rights; it supports whatever a group of people who vote someone into office, gain favor with and bribe them, want. This is not a concept of a "free country". One's "freedom" does not entail the right to determine what others do.
There are many "powers" that no level of government legitimately can possess. They do, but its not legitimate. Its all "the color of law". "They" have the badges and guns - and the gold.