View Single Post
Old October 11, 2013, 11:18 AM   #38
Frank Ettin
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 8,700
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
The possession of something in a State by any person in that State for that person's own use is not "commerce" and has only an incidental effect on interstate commerce.
unless you are growing wheat....
Except that Wickard dealt with the scope under the Commerce Clause of federal law -- not whether a potential incident affect on commerce of a state law encroached on Congressional authority.

The fact that the Commerce Clause has been interpreted broadly enough to permit federal regulation of certain matters does not mean that a State may not also regulate those matters within its borders.
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Page generated in 0.04966 seconds with 7 queries