WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

539

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] 2 pts

This is interstate commerce and should be a federal offence not a state matter. Not sure how all that works but really is a bigger deal than commiefornia in reality

[–] 3 pts

Yea. If growing your own food on your own land for your own consumption is interstate commerce (Sincerely, SCOTUS) then surely this is. If manufacturing a suppressor within your state and selling it within your state to a resident of your state for in-state use is interstate commerce then surely this is.

[–] 2 pts

Do you know what cases brought those decisions? The growing and eating your own food, and the making of suppressors.

That is wack. Scotus might end up on somones Guillotine list.

[–] 0 pt

Wickard v. Filburn (SCOTUS invents "aggregation principle")

http://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/wickard-v-filburn-1942/

Kettler V. United States. (SCOTUS decided not to hear the case, allowing the lower ruling to stand)

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/06/scotus-refuses-to-hear-nfa-challenge-in-suppressor-case/#axzz70BL9783k

[–] 0 pt

Uh the gov't decided they were going to have a food security program during the Great Depression. Somehow that involves preventing people from growing food. There was a lot of wacky stuff approved around the New Deal time frame.

[–] 2 pts

It is considered delivered if they leave at your door and not interstate commerce at that point.