• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Fed-State

AmosMoses

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
60
Location
Kentwood, ,
imported post

I was reading something on "rescue knives/switchblades", and it seemed to me that there was a legal premise that the federal government couldn't restrict the carrying of these knives, so the fed switchblade act was cooked up in regards to something they could in fact control, that being interstate commerce of the knives.

Now, that was what I gathered, and I think I am correct. Not correct as in that the point is right, but that I am pretty sure that I am correct that the writer's interpretation was in fact this. And, as I read some of the language of the law (as posted), this language seemed to follow inasmuch as the fed regulation seemed to stem from a commerce aspect.

Notwithstanding, this seems extremeley contrary to my observations in life. The "assault weapons" ban is a prime example of the feds restricting The People contrary to the foregoing idea, but of course, maybe that law also read in relation to commerce, banning interstate commerce in them, or something. But, consider the LEOSA....that also seems like an overriding of state law by the feds (albeit in my mind in the right direction), because I can't see any commerce angle on that.

I'm just curious about this....
 

VORiaSOI

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
72
Location
, ,
imported post

i kind of agree, i would like to read the article you reference. reminds me of the feds holding states hostage on the highway fund for drinking age
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
imported post

I think it's safe to say that "interstate commerce" has been used to justify the majority of the federal government's overreaching its boundaries. That clause has been quoted many times to regulate anything that may cross state lines, even if it isn't actually commerce (as you said).
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

4angrybadgers wrote:
I think it's safe to say that "interstate commerce" has been used to justify the majority of the federal government's overreaching its boundaries. That clause has been quoted many times to regulate anything that may cross state lines, even if it isn't actually commerce (as you said).

Ya'll are on the right track with this... don't stop here... The Supreme Court found that not only interstate commerce is within the jurisdiction of the fed, but also ANYTHING that may affect interstate commerce. You may want to start with finding and reading that case. Next, you need to gain a general understanding of agency law. You can get a course outline on agency law for this... I use Emanuel law outlines. It's gonna take some study time, but if ya'll really want some answers on this, you're gonna have to do your homework. :)
 
Top