Holding: "Production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act were constitutionally applied to agricultural production that was consumed purely intrastate, because its effect upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause. Southern District of Ohio reversed."
The BAFTE regulates firearms on the federal level. The powers given to the BATFE by Congress reach intrastate, so firearms made in a state won't matter according to Wickard v. Filburn.
An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:
"The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers....."There was one case which went to SCOTUS in which the opinion was altered to specify how Congress could not regulate, in United States v. Lopez.
The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so.
"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."
Enlighten me if I've missed any cases which overturn or give a different opinion in regards to how SCOTUS may view the Firearms Freedom Acts which are law in some states.