BBarn, I didn't take any of your comment as directed at me personally. I do wonder whether a lack of emphasis in my writing invited an ambiguity.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBarn
Unfortunately this type of situation is a reflection of the poor state of our current Judiciary system. State laws conflict with Federal laws, laws in general are written that conflict with state or US Constitutions and the people are left without a clear understanding of what's legal and illegal. And unless the US Supreme Court rules on a case specific to the various laws, one cannot be certain how to proceed in their lives unless current constitutional case law has settled the particulars.
|
It is clear that no state code can effectively overrule the Sup Ct decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942). Just keeping the objects in which one deals within the borders of a state doesn't mean that Congress can't regulate it as interstate commerce. Everyone can be sure that breaking a federal law by doing the things described in the Montana code above will expose an individual to the federal penalties.
I understand the observation of the problem with the current system, but in truth, the federal overreach began well before any of us were born and has continued with public approval since. I don't approve of the decision in Wickard, but it is correct caselaw in our system. Renquist tried to brush its influence back a bit, but in a caselaw system that's like replacing an intermediate stone in a basement foundation - not a small task.
As to whether people have fair notice of what the law really is generally, I concur in your point. The volume of law and regulation is so enormous that no one man can possibly know it all, and charging any person with a knowledge of the law as a general matter is a fiction. This gives government leverage over people it shouldn't properly have.
On this specific issue though, the "Firearms Freedom Act" is not law in any consequential way. It is a laudable sentiment.