WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

1.2K

(post is archived)

[–] 11 pts

The text of H.B. 957 says, “A firearm suppressor that is manufactured in this state and remains in this state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

That technically applies to any product that meets those same criteria.

[–] [deleted] 5 pts

According to Wickard v. Filburn, a farmer growing food for his own consumption can be regulated under the interstate commerce clause because by growing his own food he isn't buying it from elsewhere, affecting interstate commerce.

[–] 3 pts

One of the worst rulings in the history of a court with plenty of bad rulings to choose from. I'd love to see it challenged by a real lawyer.

[–] 2 pts

All the bad rulings, and some "good" ones have all gone as they were meant to. The entire system is corrupted and has been for a loooong fucking time.

[–] 0 pt

Yeah. That was a very bad ruling.

Like citizen united and the obamacare ruling.

[–] 1 pt

Correct. And it just states for the record a fact that already exists and has been upheld by the courts.

[–] 0 pt

What does firearm suppressor apply to besides silencers though? Isn’t that kinda rigid?

[–] 2 pts

From what I've heard this is a small step towards retaking states rights back from the Feds.

[–] 1 pt

States rights are the future for conservatives. This country is gonna schism soon.