[Spats McGee]

An interesting subject, indeed!

Originally Posted by kraigwy

. . . .All Federal Gun laws have similar wording. Why do they include that wording? . . . .

The (perhaps overly) simple answer: to bring the subject (firearms) under the umbrella of the Commerce Clause.

Originally Posted by Founding Fathers

The Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Originally Posted by kraigwy

. . . .Now lets assume you live the State of X, and in this state, Gun Manufacture Y builds firearms. You buy a Y firearm and never leave the state with that firearm.

How do you fall under federal gun laws.

The broad answer, and one that I would expect the federal government to make, is that the federal government, by virtue of the Commerce Clause, may regulate:

Originally Posted by A federal judge in Kansas

There are three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power: (1) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; (2) the protection of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce or persons or things in interstate commerce; and (3) the regulation of those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce). United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, –––– – ––––, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 1629–30, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995).

Goetz v. Glickman, 920 F. Supp. 1173, 1178 (D. Kan. 1996) aff'd, 149 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 1998)

The argument in support of federal firearms regulation is that the firearms industry "has a substantial relation to interstate commerce."

Originally Posted by kraigwy

My son works for DHS, he is one of their firearms instructors and also is a supervisors. I presented this question to him.

He told me he had attended several DHS Schools over the years and in each, when dealing with federal gun laws, was cautioned to be careful in places where a gun is found in a state where it was manufactured, before one could be charged the government has to prove that gun left the state in "interstate commerce.

How does this apply to states like Wyoming, Montana, and others with the "made in state, stays in state" laws? . . . .

An excellent question. In that case, the Commerce Clause (& all of the case law that goes with it has to be read in conjunction with some other clauses, like the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law superior to state law. One problem with the "substantially affecting interstate commerce aspect" is that if the subject of regulation is brought under that umbrella, it's not really necessary for the subject to have traveled in interstate commerce.

For example, in Wickard v. Filburn, in 1942, Mr. Filburn owned a farm, and grew wheat for himself and to sell in the area, but not to sell in interstate commerce. ("The appellee for many years past has owned and operated a small farm in Montgomery County, Ohio, maintaining a herd of dairy cattle, selling milk, raising poultry, and selling poultry and eggs. It has been his practice to raise a small acreage of winter wheat, sown in the Fall and harvested in the following July; to sell a portion of the crop; to feed part to poultry and livestock on the farm, some of which is sold; to use some in making flour for home consumption; and to keep the rest for the following seeding." Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 114, 63 S. Ct. 82, 84, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942)). By federal law, he was assessed a penalty (IIRC) for producing too much wheat, and the Secretary of Agriculture assessed a penalty against him. The trial court granted Filburn an injunction, which SCOTUS reversed, saying (by quoting an older case):

The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. * * * The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 124, 63 S. Ct. 82, 89, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942)

Originally Posted by kraigwy

Depending on the state I would think the government would have a hard roll to hoe in getting a conviction.

They might pull it off with a jury in New Jersey, Mass or such state, but they would have a difficult time getting a conviction is gun friendly stats such as Wyoming, OK, Texas.

Hopefully a lawyer dealing in Gun Laws will chime in.

I see the question as slightly different. I don't think it's a matter of a State being "gun friendly" so much as "State's Rights friendly."