NavyLCDR said:
Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has upheld that the Commerce Clause can be applied to anything the HAS moved in or affected interstate commerce, even in the past. Which, basically means, the Commerce Clause can be used by the Federal government to regulate anything and everything.
An item would have to be manufactured in a state, from raw materials exclusive to that state, using labor from that state only, and sold in that state only to not fall under the Commerce Clause.
That doesn't even seem true anymore. The Raich case dealing with marijuana went even further and expanded the authority beyond that limit.
It determined that even a product made entirely within the state, from dirt and water in the state, even if not sold at all and never a part of commerce intrastate or interstate, and never even transported in the state nevermind across a border or involving anything that has crossed a border, is still under federal authority through the commerce clause, and even through a new power granted by Scalia that could apply to everything else as well.
Even a hippy growing from rain water and California dirt for personal use and nothing ever being transported or sold would find themselves subject to federal authority through the Commerce Clause.
Once again even a plant made with nothing from out of state, and not even sold in the state or out of the state is still considered subject to federal authority in part through the Commerce Clause.
Now extend the same logic to anything else, including firearms.
This has also already been applied to firearms, involving a homemade NFA item in Arizona. Raich was cited as the legal reason federal law still applied by the SCOTUS and remanded to the lower court to reconsider its decision 'in light of Raich'. The SCOTUS basically said Raich covers all firearms by doing so, bringing them under federal jurisdiction.
This means a gun made from ore in your back yard, never transported in state or out of state, and never even sold in commerce at all in state or out of state, would still be subject to the 'Commerce Clause'.
According to Scalia, champion of Heller, just in case the Commerce Clause cannot be stretched in all possible scenarios, and clearly now it can, one can also invoke the 'Supremacy Clause'. (Of course to never seem like they are legislating from the bench the legal tradition is to give the impression any decision is based on prior decisions and existing logic. However this new clause is even more all encompassing than the Commerce Clause which has been the basis of federal jurisdiction in most areas for centuries, so nothing cannot be determined outside of federal jurisdiction now.)
Nothing is outside of federal jurisdiction now unless they say otherwise for that specific thing.
This is why all the state passed 'Firearm Freedom Acts' and the like are already defeated per case law. Every gun, made from any material, even if it involves nothing from out of state at any point, would be subject to federal jurisdiction under this new all powerful all encompassing interpretation.
As a result one must even consider prior cases like Lopez, dealing with the Gun Free School Zone Act. The primary defeat for that legislation at the time was having to prove the gun was subject to the commerce clause, or that its possession at or near a school had an impact on commerce and clearly 'in light of Raich' that would no longer even be a concern.
As a result the Lopez case heard today under the new much more powerful interpretation of the Commerce Clause would be unlikely to have even reached the same conclusion.
The original legislation would have sufficed, even before being re-written by Congress and passed again. (Now perhaps it could be determined to violate the 2nd and so be unconstitutional, but it certainly wouldn't be outside of the commerce clause jurisdiction.)
