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

©2026 Poal.co

270

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)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (25).
[–] • 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.