itsasecret wrote:divegeek wrote:It's very unlikely that these bills will survive review by the Supreme Court. I think it's a travesty, but the Court made their opinion clear in Gonzales v. Raich: they don't care if something is created and used purely within one state, as long as there is some way that it can affect interstate commerce, it is subject to federal regulation. Since guns manufactured in Utah or Montana reduce the demand for guns imported from outside of Utah or Montana, they affect interstate commerce.
IANAL, but wasn't one key element of Gonzalez vs Raich that the medical marijuana grown, sold, and consumed in CA was indistinguishable from illegal marijuana transported across state lines. That was, as I understand it, the reason for the "Made in Montana" stamp requirement: It distinguishes them from other firearms that are subject to federal regulation. I'm not sure if that's enough of a difference to convince the SCOTUS to rattle the very foundation of so many federal laws and regulation, but as I understand it, it was one key element that the authors of Montana's Firearm Freedom Act inserted into the bill specifically to make this case different than a re-run of Gonzalez vs Raich.
You've already mentioned some of the other things (the Second Amendment convergence, the "emerging consensus" among the states, etc) that, along with the "Made in Montana" stamp, give me some glimmer of hope that we have at least a faint chance in this case.
Interesting point. I hope the "Made in Montana" stamp does make a difference.