Kansas Leads the Nation

[BSA1]

."..the Ninth Circuit (Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013)) has affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the suit and ruled that the Montana law upon which plaintiff relied is preempted by federal law, which federal law Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to enact. The Ninth Circuit relied substantially on Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) and United States v. Stewart, 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006)...."

Kansas is in the 10th Circuit and the 9th Circuit is the most overturned Federal Court. So the stage is set should Holder presses the issue.

But the thread has gone somewhat off topic which was how pro-active Kansas has become after being Johnny-come-lately to the party. Quite a change in just 7 years.

 

[dogtown tom]

BSA1 One last comment. Sale of products made within a state and sold to the residents of that SAME STATE are INTRASTATE transactions.

Yes sir, but you fail at your understanding of how courts have ruled on those sales affecting INTERSTATE commerce.

You keep referencing interstate cases which are not the same thing. It looks like you re as confused about the difference in the meaning between Intrastate and Interstate just as you are about open carry in Texas.

Kansas certainly doesn't lead in reading comprehension............
Again, if you would take the time to read that Wiki article I think you might understand why Kansas doesn't get it.

Here, I'll cut, paste and highlight the relevant portions. (and FYI, this has been covered in several previous threads here on THR...it ain't nuttin new )

From Wikipedia:

The Rehnquist Court[edit]
.....The opinion pointed out that prior decisions had identified three broad categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power.
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce;[17]
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in Interstate Commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities;[18]
Finally, Congress's commerce authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce).[19]

Fran Ettin has already mentioned the amazing success of Montana's firearm freedom law as well as Gonzalez v Raich.

But feel free to provide a citation that disagrees with those USSC decisions.

 

[JohnKSa]

Please cite Supreme Court ruling regarding Intrastate manufacture and sales to residents of that same state without BATF approval.

Wickard vs. Filburn

The Supreme Court ruling in this case indicates that even personal manufacture of items can be regulated by the federal government on the basis that such manufacture affects national supply--however minimally. Even if the person manufactures the item for his own use and it is never sold, let alone sold in interstate commerce, SCOTUS ruled that since the person would have otherwise had to purchase the item, the manufacture of it therefore affected national supply and validated the federal claim of jurisdiction.

 

[JTHunter]

Another state has "seen the light".
Almost makes being in "tornado alley" worth it.