Bio not provided
You decide the issue relative to the terms INTERSTATE/INTRASTATE. Interstate is from outside the border to a point inside the border. That concludes the relationship. It's the first stop inside the border of recipient state. Thereafter, everything else that happens within the border of recipient state is INTRASTATE. This is clear to me.
1 year, 3 months ago on Not Everything is “Interstate Commerce”
Still, i've yet to hear commentary regarding that point i alluded to within my original post. Again, and using example of a firearm...it is manufactured within one state and shipped to the purchaser (a dealer) within another state. It seems to me that is where the INTERSTATE relationship ends. Where it crosses the border and arrives at it's destination. Thereafter, a resident of that state makes purchase of that gun from that gun dealer within same state. I believe that transaction falls under INTRASTATE. Or, is someone saying that only when/if the FORM of the product or goods CHANGES, AFTER it arrives at its initial destination, then in that case it is INTRASTATE?
I really agree with you in principle, as to the difficulty. I see the solution to this being a "collective" of states getting together and just "doing it" under the 10th amendment.They should all amend their FFA's and include language relative to my original post. The interstate relationship ends at the firearms dealer and intrastate picks up from dealer to resident customer. This makes sense when you consider that wickard v filburn as it exists now should be a problem for the current FFA's that states have enacted even though the rule is "made and used" inside the border. This "made and used" inside border is no different that the corn grown inside border within wickard. YET, have the Feds moved against the states regarding the FFA's? I haven't seen anything yet??? I believe the real power is in numbers of states working together. To save time, I believe states should simply enact one piece of legislation declaring ALL unconstitutional acts wil be investigated then nullified without any further warning or notice. Hey, the money flows first to the states (as originally intended) then to the feds. Let them submit a bill to the states! And if unconstitutional, NO PAYMENT! The states keep the money!
I'm not familiar with Wickard v Filburn but accept that it advances "their" interests related to interstate. BUT, here you say that within the "GFSZ" the case fell apart. The question is why did it fall apart? You say it was case specific. It may be that it was in contravention to Wickard but again.....it fell apart! And I say that this issue I brought in my original post REQUIRES that careful minds get together and bring a CAREFULLY prosecuted case for all commerce inside the border to be INTRASTATE. And there is good reason to do this as a reading of Willard v Filburn shows that it was an absurd decision. And Justice Thomas in GFSZ demonstrated his consideration of "Interstate Commerce" is outside the Federal boundary.
I think this issue is ripe and ready but again, careful minds need to collaborate on a new case brought.
It's as I suspected. The political cowards who drafted these FFA's in the various legislatures sidestepped the above issue and played it safe! They should've added in the language of "ALL FIREARMS SOLD BY GUN DEALERS TO BUYERS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE". If in fact the interstate relationship ends at the dealer. Can you or anyone else confirm this? If this is fact then I would look to contact the lawmakers and ask them why they sidestepped this, requiring all residents to submit to a Fed check on purchase. I feel that even if there was doubt these things need to be tested in the courts and this is one good way to do it. Enact the legislation, make it law and just do it! When/if challenged then deal with it.
I don't read commentary regarding the commerce (intra-state) that goes on AFTER a manufactured product arrives inside the state border. For example, a gun is manufactured at a plant within another state. The gun then travels interstate (shipped) to the recipient state and arrives inside the border of that recipient state and gets delivered to the gun dealer. It would seem to me that the INTERSTATE relationship requirement ends with the delivery to the dealer. It them follows that the dealer has the responsibility to conform to the Federal law requirements for interstate receipt of goods.
Thereafter dealer sells gun to buyer who resides within that recipient state. It seems to me that this particular relationship (dealer to buyer) would fall under INTRASTATE as the transaction took place totally within the confines of the state.
Following this, can it be said that these new FFA's enacted by state legislatures have total oversight over these apparent intrastate dealer to buyer transactions? A careful reading of the existing laws in a handful of tates shows that the lawmakers ignored this scenario and focused only on firearms "produced/manufactured" inside of state.
So this question needs to be answered by somebody. It's glaringly obvious to me.
1 year, 4 months ago on Not Everything is “Interstate Commerce”