Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.5K

Many of the federal laws are created based on the interstate (between state) commerce clause, including the federal drug laws. However, CO, and all those states that have legalized weed at the state level have challenged the federal drug laws by creating state laws specifically stating that weed should not leave the state (and thus not causing interstate commerce).

So, what happens when state laws specify that people can own all manner of weapons at the state level, but that those weapons must not leave the state?

Many of the federal laws are created based on the interstate (between state) commerce clause, including the federal drug laws. However, CO, and all those states that have legalized weed at the state level have challenged the federal drug laws by creating state laws specifically stating that weed should not leave the state (and thus not causing interstate commerce). So, what happens when state laws specify that people can own all manner of weapons at the state level, but that those weapons must not leave the state?

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts

The commerce clause creates problems. If you can figure out how to make a machine gun without using any parts from another state, and if the money used to purchase them doesn't cross state lines (no credit cards, etc.), then you might be able to get away with it.

This is in no small part why Marxists are keen to get rid of cash. Without cash you have to use electronic forms of payment, which open everything to federal control.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Many states have pushed the notion of intrastate arms production. Weapons which are specifically designed for sale in state and as such do not qualify for interstate commerce (which is federal overreach and unconstitutional according to our Framers).

Not seen any significant movement on this. But in theory, it's legal according to the illegal laws.

Legal and what criminals in our government will do have always been two different things.

[–] • 1 pt

The federal laws only apply across state lines when it comes to additional restrictions, in states where things like suppressors are produced, you can buy them without the tax stamp and use them to your hearts content, so long as they do not cross state lines.

[–] • 1 pt

AZ did pass such a law. I would have to look up if it got challenged or repealed however it was a full auto made in AZ that never left AZ borders was legal.

[–] • 0 pt

Full auto? That's interesting.

[–] • 1 pt

Might be handled like a registered conceal carry and how some states recognize others.

USCCA’s Concealed Carry Reciprocity Map & Gun Laws by State

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map

[–] • 0 pt

As soon as things cross state lines, it can be construed as "interstate commerce" and it becomes a federal issue.

[–] • 0 pt

Commerce? Are they selling the weapon?

[–] • 0 pt

The federal governments powers are supposed to be very limited, and one of their powers is to regulate commerce between states. However, some corrupt/stupid court construed anything happening in one state can be regulated as interstate commerce, giving rise to all sorts of federal laws that regulate things that were never supposed to be regulated at the federal level.

The only way to that seems to undo those federal laws are to create state laws that contradict the federal laws and also explicitly prohibit the activity from crossing state lines.

[–] • 0 pt

Now that Tennessee says permitless carry is legal does that mean reciprocity states will honor permitless carry for Tennesseans in all those states?

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I think this is being tried. The key component is the manufacturing. The guns must be made in the State sold, and the manufacturer must only make guns to be sold in that state, no federal permit. Gun manufacturing without a permit breaks federal law.

[–] • 3 pts

The problem is nothing stops the ATF from kicking down your door and making an example of you even if you did nothing wrong

[–] • 2 pts

Cant oathkeeper sherriff's arrest atf faggots?

[–] • 0 pt

oathkeepers are comprimised, you should treat them as feds

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

If states would actively, forcefully (and to be clear, I mean by shooting them) intercede against federal agents overstepping their authority the feds would be less inclined to play that game.

[–] • 1 pt

"... The AFT..." - Joe Biden

[–] • 2 pts

I also knew the guy would go after building your own guns. I have no idea how one would ever enforce this without essentially banning all guns in the process, because there would be no real way of verifying a door to door to see who made one vs bought one.

[–] • 1 pt

Good points!

Someone's going to have to reread all those old treaties to see if biden's BS is applicable on Indian Reservations as well.

[–] • 1 pt

Interesting idea.

[–] • 2 pts

Thanks.

Exploiting gray areas for fun and profit is one of my hobbies.

[–] • 0 pt

A lot of rezs are anti gun....