Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Werewolf" data-source="post: 705773" data-attributes="member: 239"><p>Because the Supremes have said over and over again that the Interstate Commerce clause applies even if the item/situation only indirectly impacts interstate commerce.</p><p> </p><p>For example growing apples on your land for your own consumption is federally regulatable. Why? You impacted interstate commerce. How? If you hadn't grown those apples you'd have had to buy them. By not having to buy them you've impacted apple growers in other states, truckers that move those apples from other states, parts makers that make parts and tools that support apple growers and truckers in other states.</p><p> </p><p>Sounds pretty silly doesn't it.</p><p> </p><p>Well there was a guy named Turner (I think that was his name) who lived in Ohio back in the 40's that found out to his dismay that growing wheat on his farm, that never left that farm and was for his own use only was involved in interstate commerce according to the supremes. </p><p> </p><p>These laws that Montana and Tennessee have passed are doomed. Feels good to live in a state where a law like that is passed but that's about as useful as the law will be. I for one wouldn't want to be the test case in MT or TN.</p><p> </p><p>Would YOU?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Werewolf, post: 705773, member: 239"] Because the Supremes have said over and over again that the Interstate Commerce clause applies even if the item/situation only indirectly impacts interstate commerce. For example growing apples on your land for your own consumption is federally regulatable. Why? You impacted interstate commerce. How? If you hadn't grown those apples you'd have had to buy them. By not having to buy them you've impacted apple growers in other states, truckers that move those apples from other states, parts makers that make parts and tools that support apple growers and truckers in other states. Sounds pretty silly doesn't it. Well there was a guy named Turner (I think that was his name) who lived in Ohio back in the 40's that found out to his dismay that growing wheat on his farm, that never left that farm and was for his own use only was involved in interstate commerce according to the supremes. These laws that Montana and Tennessee have passed are doomed. Feels good to live in a state where a law like that is passed but that's about as useful as the law will be. I for one wouldn't want to be the test case in MT or TN. Would YOU? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom