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

©2026 Poal.co

820

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).
[–] • 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.