Skip to main content

View Diary: Brian Schweitzer signed into law legislation nullifying federal gun laws in 2009 (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    You can spin novel theories all you like, but what you are arguing simply is not the law.  So onto to s few points from commerce clause jurisprdence.  I would point out that wikard was raising his grain for personal comsumption and not selling at all.  The "national ripple" theory isn't the test that is applied here.  Rather it is whether there is a substantial burden (compelling interest is not the test for such laws, they only need a rational basis). Many of the relevant cases have involved city ordinances that give the local trash company a monopoly. Note also, the second amendment doesn't really play in here, and if it did, it would be an identical bar to states and the federal government alike since that is a right of the people. I am not aware that there is any case ruling that such items are treated any differently under the commerce clause.  You still have whatever rights you have regardless of who is regulating the market.  

    Take a look for a description of the dormant commerce clause since that should give you a good sense of the flavor of how courts apply this stuff

    Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

    by Mindful Nature on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 07:55:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site